learning in the 21st century: a study addressing
TRANSCRIPT
University of Central Florida University of Central Florida
STARS STARS
Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019
2016
Learning in the 21st Century: A Study Addressing Educational Learning in the 21st Century: A Study Addressing Educational
Trends and Implications Trends and Implications
Rodney Harshbarger University of Central Florida
Part of the Education Commons
Find similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd
University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.edu
This Doctoral Dissertation (Open Access) is brought to you for free and open access by STARS. It has been accepted
for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019 by an authorized administrator of STARS. For more
information, please contact [email protected].
STARS Citation STARS Citation Harshbarger, Rodney, "Learning in the 21st Century: A Study Addressing Educational Trends and Implications" (2016). Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019. 5043. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd/5043
LEARNING IN THE 21ST CENTURY: A STUDY ADDRESSING EDUCATIONAL TRENDS AND IMPLICATIONS
by
DENISE HARSHBARGER B.S. Erskine College, 1999
M.S. Florida State University, 2008
and
RODNEY HARSHBARGER B.A. University of Southwestern Louisiana, 1995
M.A. University of Florida, 1998
A dissertation in practice submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education
in the College of Education and Human Performance at the University of Central Florida
Orlando, Florida
Summer Term 2016
Major Professor: Carolyn Walker Hopp
ii
© 2016 Denise Harshbarger and Rodney Harshbarger
iii
ABSTRACT
The 21st century workforce is very different from the workforce of our predecessors.
With the rise in automation and technology there are new demands that are being placed on
employers to produce goods that are faster, more personalized, and more accessible. In order to
meet these demands, this generation of employees must have a skillset that complements these
demands. This skillset includes communication, collaboration, critical thinking, and creativity
(4C) skills. The problem of practice addressed in this dissertation is the lack of 4C skills among
students currently in the K-12 education system, and the lack of opportunities students have to
develop these 4C qualities.
This problem was examined through a pilot study that was conducted in the context of a
fifth grade setting in a small and rural school district in northeastern Florida. Teachers
volunteered to provide a two-week unit of instruction to their students that focused on the
development of communication, collaboration, critical thinking, and creativity (4C) skills within
the context of state mandated curricular content. Curriculum also promoted the development of
students’ non-cognitive factors (academic behaviors, academic mindset, learning strategies,
social skills, and perseverance) as stepping-stones to refining students’ 4C skills. Over the
course of the two-week unit, teachers tracked the development of their students’ 4C skills, noting
their perceived progress of students through teacher focus group sessions and through individual
teacher’s written reflections.
The results revealed that teachers perceived their students 4C skills to improve over the
course of the unit of study, especially after the first four days of instruction. One significant
finding of the pilot was that teachers who subscribe to a more student-centered philosophy of
iv
teaching were more successful with implementing a 4C rich curriculum than teachers who
preferred a teacher-centered classroom. Student-centered teachers also perceived more growth in
their students’ 4C abilities than teachers who were teacher-centered.
The framework developed from this study is intended to assist educators who are
interested in improving students’ 4C abilities. The framework was created and refined to reflect
the results of the pilot study. Each of the non-cognitive factors that supported the development
of the 4C skills were aligned in a visual and described in a rubric that can be used by educators to
guide their students’ progression toward proficiency in 4C skills. In this pilot, learning
strategies, academic behaviors, and academic mindset were the non-cognitive factors that
supported the development of all 4Cs, while social skills were critical to the development of
communication and collaboration, and academic perseverance was essential to the development
of critical thinking and creativity.
Recommendations for further studies include repeating the pilot study with a larger
sample size and across multiple grade levels, as well as providing more lengthy and in-depth
training for teachers who are interested in promoting 4C skills in their classrooms.
v
This work is dedicated to our parents, Dennis and Joy Migliaro, who earned their doctorates in child supervision while we earned ours in education.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We want to acknowledge all of the professors we have had the privilege of learning from
through the EdD program at the University of Central Florida. Your willingness to push our
thinking and continue to believe in our abilities, even when we did not believe in ourselves, is
something we will always appreciate. In particular, we want to thank our committee members,
Dr. Walter Doherty, Dr. Harold Border, and Dr. Thomas Vitale. We appreciate your unwavering
support and advice. We are especially grateful for our chair, Dr. Carolyn Walker Hopp. You are
the epitome of a true teacher. Your nurturing, positive feedback, and calming presence in our
journey has not been overlooked. Thank you for your guidance, strategic questioning, and
continuous support. This journey would not have been possible without you as our guide.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................x
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. xi
CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................1 Problem of Practice ..................................................................................................1 Problem Statement ...................................................................................................1 Significance..............................................................................................................7 Research Questions ..................................................................................................9 Organizational Context ..........................................................................................10 Positionality ...........................................................................................................15 History and Conceptualization of Education .........................................................16 Historical Context ..................................................................................................19
National ......................................................................................................19 Local ..........................................................................................................20
Factors that Impact the Problem ............................................................................22 Data ............................................................................................................22
Potential Causes of the Problem ............................................................................22 Proposed Framework .............................................................................................23
Curriculum .................................................................................................23 Non-Cognitive Factors ...............................................................................24 Leadership ..................................................................................................29 Pilot ............................................................................................................32 Data ............................................................................................................34 Methods......................................................................................................34
CHAPTER 2 PILOT STUDY: THE SCIENCE OF SOUND ...........................................36 Pilot Rationale ........................................................................................................38 Goals of the Pilot ...................................................................................................39 Expected Outcomes of the Pilot .............................................................................39
Positionality ...............................................................................................41 Methods..................................................................................................................43 Pilot Participants ....................................................................................................45 Implementation of the Pilot ...................................................................................46
Professional Learning ................................................................................47 Results ....................................................................................................................51
Focus Groups: Days 1–3 ............................................................................52 Focus Groups: Days 4–7 ............................................................................53 Focus Groups: Days 8–10 ..........................................................................54
Anecdotal Reflections ............................................................................................55 Discussion ..............................................................................................................62
viii
CHAPTER 3 PILOT ANALYSIS .....................................................................................64 Overview ................................................................................................................64 Outcomes ...............................................................................................................65 Researcher Positionality .........................................................................................66 Teacher Positionality .............................................................................................67 Student Progression ...............................................................................................68 Content ...................................................................................................................68 Teacher Support for Implementation .....................................................................69 Focus Groups .........................................................................................................70
Modeling ....................................................................................................71 Administrative Positionality ..................................................................................71 Instructional Methods and Teacher Practice ..........................................................72 Development of Students’ 4C Skills ......................................................................74 Development of Students’ Content Knowledge ....................................................76 Framework .............................................................................................................77 Intended Audience .................................................................................................77 Intended Use ..........................................................................................................78
CHAPTER 4 INCREASING STUDENTS’ COMMUNICATION, COLLABORATION, CRITICAL THINKING, AND CREATIVE THINKING SKILLS ..............................................................................................................................80
Overview ................................................................................................................80 Outcomes ...............................................................................................................81 Framework .............................................................................................................81 Intended Audience .................................................................................................82 Intended Use ..........................................................................................................82 Visual for Developing Students Communication, Collaboration, Critical Thinking, and Creative Thinking Skills .................................................................83 The Role of Social Skills in the Development of Communication and Collaboration..........................................................................................................90 Communication ......................................................................................................90 Collaboration..........................................................................................................92 The Role of Academic Perseverance in the Development of Critical Thinking and Creative Thinking ............................................................................94 Critical Thinking ....................................................................................................94 Creativity................................................................................................................97 Conclusion .............................................................................................................98
CHAPTER 5 IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................100 Program Coursework ...........................................................................................104 Implications..........................................................................................................105 Recommendations for Future Study ....................................................................106 Conclusion ...........................................................................................................108
ix
APPENDIX A SCIENCE OF SOUND ........................................................................110
APPENDIX B PERMISSION TO CONDUCT STUDY: FLAGLER COUNTY........115
APPENDIX C INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL ..........................117
APPENDIX D PERMISSION TO CONDUCT STUDY: OLD KING’S ELEMENTARY SCHOOL .............................................................................................119
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................121
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Framework for 21st century success.. ............................................................................. 7
Figure 2. 4C and non-cognitive alignment chart. ......................................................................... 29
Figure 3. Expanded visual for developing students’ communication, collaboration, critical thinking, and creative thinking skills. ........................................................................................... 84
Figure 4. Condensed visual for developing students’ communication, collaboration, critical thinking, and creative thinking skills. ........................................................................................... 85
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 4C and Non-Cognitive Alignment ................................................................................. 28
Table 2 Pilot Summary ............................................................................................................... 35
Table 3 Participant Experiences in Education ............................................................................ 46
Table 4 Teacher Perceptions of Student 4C Skill Improvement During Unit Instruction .......... 56
Table 5 Rubric for Refining Students’ Communication, Collaboration, Critical Thinking, and Creative Thinking Skills ........................................................................................................ 87
1
CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND
Problem of Practice
The current public education system has been structured in a way that does not meet the
needs of contemporary students, with curriculum originally structured to meet demands that are
no longer relevant (Tucker, 2011); these irrelevant demands include shaping future workers for a
labor market comprised of jobs in manufacturing and other labor-intensive industries that no
longer exist (Fullan, 2012). With automation replacing workers in manufacturing, the demand
for a higher-skilled, better-educated workforce increased. As a result of these changes in the
labor market, 21st century students need academic opportunities that challenge them to solve
complex problems, make rational decisions, and present compelling arguments for their solutions
to the problems (Pink, 2006). In most contemporary public education settings, the main focus of
the curriculum involves ensuring that students can demonstrate proficiency on annual
assessments (Goertz & McDuffy, 2001; Reeves, 2006, Stiggins, 2005). Unfortunately, this focus
on annual assessments has resulted in an educational system of compliance, assessment,
mediocrity, and stagnation. Sadly, students exhibit limited drive to engage their natural curiosity
about the world around them, and often display little interest in a curriculum that equally bores
their teachers (Fullan, 2012; Pink, 2006).
Problem Statement
In this study, the researchers have identified the following problem of practice: because
current curriculum provides students with few opportunities to develop and refine their skills in
2
collaboration with other students, to engage in creative thinking, to practice effective
communication, and to think critically (the 4Cs), this dissertation in practice addressed
curriculum and strategies (connected to Florida Standards) that teachers can use to engage
students in developing these skills.
The National Educator’s Association (NEA) was established in 1857 and since that time
has been committed to providing high quality publications and educational materials to educators
(NEA, 2015). In 2002, the NEA published a 21st century framework that was designed to assist
educators in making the transition from what was once considered a high quality education to
what is now required for students to be successful (NEA, 2010). This initial framework was
complex and not easily applied in the classroom. The NEA recognized this gap between
framework and practice and resolved to streamline the framework through research in
partnership with eight other national organizations dedicated to excellence in education. These
groups worked collectively to interview leaders from every segment of the workforce over the
course of several years. Data from interviews were analyzed and generated a pattern of four
distinct skills required for 21st century students (NEA, 2010). These four skills became known
as the 4Cs of 21st century education: (a) critical thinking, (b) communication, (c) collaboration,
and (d) creativity (NEA, 2010).
Critical thinking can be defined as the ability to problem solve, reason effectively, or
make proper judgments and correct decisions by applying systems thinking (NEA, 2010;
Partnership For 21st Century Learning, 2015). Critical thinking constitutes an essential skill for
the 21st century because of the need for solving important problems with either small pieces of
information or overwhelmingly large pieces of information (NEA, 2010; Wyer, 2014). Also,
3
technology has increased access to information but has, at the same time, significantly eroded the
patience of the average human for problem solving (Heckman, 2007; Stromquist, 2002,).
Finally, the 21st century workforce must be able to distinguish credible information from opinion
and commercialism, to engage in critical thinking in order to create superior products, and satisfy
the ever-growing demands of 21st century customers (AMA, 2010; NEA 2010).
In addition to critical thinking skills, communication skills are required to be successful
in the 21st century workforce. Communication skills include both understanding what is being
communicated and effectively expressing an idea or concept (Partnership for 21st Century
Learning, 2015). Communication is an essential 21st century skill because workers must be able
to relate to both customers and co-workers through empathy, explanation, and negotiation (NEA,
2010). While communication is a hallmark of the traditional education system, workforce
studies cite deficits in this essential skill as major area of concern for more than 70% of
employers interviewed (Conference Board, 2006; Wyer, 2014). Specifically, technology has
also enabled this generation to feel connected with others without having to be physically near
them or having to engage them in meaningful conversation (Kraut et al., 1998).
Collaboration is defined as working flexibly, effectively, and equitably with others in
order to accomplish a shared task (NEA, 2010; Partnership for 21st Century Learning,
2015). The rise of technology and the subsequent internationalization of companies—
geographically and culturally—requires the 21st century workforce to engage in collaborative
work, which often includes team members from other countries (NEA, 2010, Wyer, 2014). The
ability to work with a culturally diverse team is more firmly underscored by the rise in
personalization of products. As personalization and convenience of consumers rise, so does the
4
need for multiple perspectives and approaches to problem solving. This creates the demand for
effective collaboration skills of the 21st century workforce (NEA, 2010; Partnership for 21st
Century Learning, 2015; Wyer, 2014).
Finally, creative thinking is defined as the ability to create a novel object or concept, or to
refine an existing product to be more desirable (NEA, 2010; Partnership for 21st Century
Learning, 2015). The ability to think creatively is a of the 21st century skill that cannot be
ignored. With the rise in automation and outsourcing of jobs, creativity is one leverage point that
all humans can rely on for job security (NEA, 2010; Partnership for 21st Century Learning,
2015; Pink, 2006; Wyer, 2014).
The brunt of the paucity of 4C development falls on students, as it is their individual
futures that are at stake. An inadequate education can ultimately lead to a lifetime of poverty,
which tends to perpetuate itself in a multi-generational cycle of underserved or under-achieving
students (Payne, DeVol, & Smith, 2001).
Limited success in students’ mastery the 4Cs also impacts teachers within the profession.
Teacher turnover is significant; research shows that one in three teachers will leave the
profession within the first two years of their careers, while up to 50% of teachers leave within
their first five years of service (Borman & Dowling, 2008; Henry et al., 2011; Ingersoll &
Strong, 2011; Look, 2015). Among other factors, teacher attrition is often attributed to
environmental factors within the school (Borman & Dowling, 2008). In addition to
environmental factors, students’ ability to exhibit non-cognitive skills (academic mindsets,
academic behaviors, social skills, learning strategies, and academic perseverance) and school
climate and culture play significant roles in whether or not teachers decide to remain in their
5
current positions (Grayson & Alvarez, 2008; Gu & Day, 2007; Ingersoll, 2001; Scafidi et al.,
2007; Weiss, 1999).
The problems that result from the lack of an engaging and challenging curriculum for
students begin with motivation. Research indicates that student motivation primarily hinges on
student–teacher relationships and perceived relevancy of curriculum (Baker et al., 2008; Mouton
et al., 1996; Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Ryan et al., 1998; Ryan & Pintrich,
1998). The environment in which students learn is another contributing factor that can serve as a
catalyst for intrinsic motivation. The lack of a stimulating and supportive environment
undermines student motivation, ultimately leading to limited academic success (Pintrich, 2003).
While important, motivation alone does not always correlate with achievement (Hardre, 2012),
underscoring the need for positive and supporting environments and relationships among all
stakeholders within a school (Mega et al., 2014; Wang & Eccles, 2013).
The culture within any public school is riddled with unremitting punitive academic
checkpoints for teachers and students alike. These checkpoints create a stressful environment
that prevents both teachers and students from performing at their highest level (Ryan & Deci,
2000). In addition, the teaching environment is a significant variable that influences whether or
not a teacher will remain in the profession (Borman & Dowling, 2008). The current focus of
assessment and accountability does not support opportunities for teachers to be supported and
nurtured in their formative years of teaching and learning.
This problem of practice is critical because it reveals a significant deficiency in the
education system’s ability to adequately prepare students to assume their future roles in college,
in their future careers, and as responsible citizens capable of making good decisions in a
6
globalized economy (Millican, 2003; Stromquist, 2002). Even many of the highest achieving K-
12 students find themselves at a disadvantage in the global marketplace because they have not
had adequate practice in the 4Cs during their formal schooling years. This dissertation in
practice proposes that the problem is not worthy of preservation, as the ultimate impact it has on
both individuals and the nation, as a whole, prevents the advancement of the country as
competitive in the world marketplace and able to sustain development and progress within the
United States (Eicher, 1996; Friedman, 2005; Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2007).
Providing students with an academic foundation that includes effective 4C skills can be
accomplished by implementing a framework for curriculum within K-12 education that is more
closely aligned with the needs of individuals living in a global society, which includes structured
and supported opportunities for students to engage in a curriculum rich in collaboration,
creativity, communication, and critical thinking. One should note, however, that this curriculum
can not stand alone as a palliative to the current problem. In order for teachers to develop these
skills in students, school leaders must be willing and able to support teachers in delivering
instruction that not only provides opportunities to engage in work that requires students to
develop 4C skills, but also provides them with adequate non-cognitive skills (Figure 1).
7
Figure 1. Framework for 21st century success. Copyright 2016 by D. Harshbarger and R. Harshbarger.
The application of this framework will serve the purpose of preparing students to make
educated decisions as citizens and to overcome the challenges that await them when they enter
the workforce or a post-secondary institution (Baron & Markman, 2000; Matthews, 2006;
Parker, 2003; Wilson & Berenthal, 2005).
Significance
The lack of opportunities within the K-12 curriculum for students to engage in problem
solving is a significant issue because the mission of public schools is to provide a foundational
experience for students that will adequately prepare them for college or a career. The needs of
8
the 21st century workforce include abilities and skills that place a heavy emphasis on higher
order problem-solving abilities and the ability of individuals to solve these problems
collaboratively (Pink, 2006). However, in spite of this knowledge, the current public education
system remains focused on assessments and accountability which creates an authoritarian
environment in which teachers and students have become compliant subjects instead of excited
and motivated learners (Herman & Baker, 2005; Booher-Jennings, 2006; Bridgeland, Dilulio, &
Morison, 2006). In order to examine this problem as a whole, this dissertation in practice will
examine the problem from multiple perspectives within the context of the organization,
including: (a) curriculum, (b) non-cognitive factors, and (c) leadership.
Examination of curriculum currently pervasive in schools reflects the decentralized
nature of education in the United States. However, the majority of academic programs (pre-K to
12th grade) within the individual states are composed of curricula that include instruction in
reading and language arts, mathematics, science, social studies and or civics, as well as a
multitude of non-core elective courses (Department of Education, 2008). While there has been a
recent surge in consideration of elements of educational psychology, non-cognitive factors are
elements of the instructional equation that are rarely considered beyond the basic introduction of
students to their classrooms at the outset of the year or in isolation of academic coursework
(Garcia, 2014; Nagaoka, 2013,). Another promising solution to the problem is the use of Project
Based Learning curriculum, which is based in skills that align with the 4Cs of 21st century
learning (Harada, Kirio, & Yamamoto, 2008; Thomas, 2000). While this curriculum shows
promise of aligning with the needs of workforce, its implementation is not common in the
9
majority of public schools (Bridgeland, et al., 2006; Booher-Jennings, 2006; Herman & Baker,
2005; Thomas, 2000).
The lack of 4C skills among students is tremendous because our nation’s future is at
stake; the U.S. system of public education is not a front-runner in the global competition to mold
a new generation of well-rounded, high-achieving students (Tucker, 2011). With automation on
the rise, the development of critical thinking skills is imperative for students who will enter a
21st century workforce that requires skills beyond what a computer or robot can provide (Pink,
2006; Tucker, 2011). Without these 21st century skills, the young adults entering the workforce
will qualify for less-demanding, low-paying positions that lead to a lifetime of poverty. In order
for the US to remain competitive, and for its children to maintain a high quality of life for
themselves and for their children, the current educational system must improve. In this
dissertation in practice, the researchers propose that the paucity of 21st century skills in K-12
students exists because it has been viewed as individual components instead of as a whole.
Specifically, the system of education must be viewed from the supporting components of a 4C-
rich curriculum, non-cognitive factors, and leadership.
Research Questions
1. Do students exhibit collaboration, creative thinking, effective communication, and critical
thinking skills (4Cs) when the curriculum provides opportunity to engage the students in
work where they can demonstrate the 4Cs?
10
2. How can explicitly teaching students non-cognitive factors (academic mindset, academic
behaviors, perseverance, social skills, learning strategies) influence their ability to
effectively demonstrate 4C skills?
Organizational Context
The education system within the US is divided into two branches: (a) the pre-
kindergarten through 12th grade system and (b) the post-secondary education system of institutes
of higher education. These two branches of the educational system offer both public (non-profit
schools that are free to the general public) and private options. This study focused on the public
realm pre-K through 12th grade system, which is designed to prepare students for a career or
postsecondary studies. The pre-K through 12th grade system of governance consists of multiple,
decentralized layers (USDOE, 2008), limiting the role of the Federal Department of Education to
establishing policies, providing financial and other forms of aid in conjunction with other Federal
agencies, and collecting data (USDOE, 2008). This system imparts the governance of schools to
the individual states in which the schools reside. All states have established a Department of
Education that works under the direction of the state legislature. The Department of Education
within each state sets policies, establishes curriculum, and provides resources to schools that
function within its boundaries. Each state is further organized into individual districts called a
local education agency (LEA); it is the responsibility of each LEA to establish an elected school
board that oversees the governance of the local school system. Local education agencies vary in
their approach in selecting a superintendent of schools, who oversees the general function of the
school system. Some LEAs appoint superintendents through a school board vote but the
11
majority of LEAs elect superintendents through a general election held every four years. The
role of the superintendent is to oversee the implementation of teaching and learning within the
LEA, to ensure that state policies and mandates are being met, and that students within their LEA
receive an appropriate education. Local education agencies that are exceptionally large may
allow superintendents to appoint area superintendents to oversee specific areas of the district to
ensure that the standards for education are met.
The LEA associated with this study is a small and rural district located in northeast
Florida. In the early 1900s, a plot of land was donated to the small and rural district that became
the site of a one-room schoolhouse for Grades 1-8. Eventually, that schoolhouse was traded in
favor of a larger plot of land, which eventually housed a larger school. The school was the only
district public school available until the mid-1970s, when new schools were built. The district
now educates approximately 13,000 students who are spread among five public elementary
schools, two public middle schools, and two public high schools. All five public elementary
schools are pre-K through sixth grade and have between 1,100 and 1,400 students. Each
elementary school contains a leadership staff consisting of a principal, two assistant principals,
and two academic coaches. Middle schools house only seventh and eighth grade students, with
an approximate enrollment of 1,000 students at each school. Leadership at these schools
includes a principal, two assistant principals, and at least two academic coaches. Both high
schools consist of ninth through 12th grades and have a leadership staff that includes a principal,
at least three assistant principals, and at least two academic coaches. One high school has an
average enrollment of 2,400 students while the other averages approximately 1,500.
12
Although the district is small and rural, the population is diverse. The district
demographics breakdown is as follows: (a) 64% white, (b) 16% black, (c) 11% Hispanic, and (d)
9% multi-racial or other (Accreditation Report Flagler County School District, 2013, p. 4).
Students within the district come from similarly diverse economic backgrounds, including
students from affluent communities, traditional suburban middle class communities, government
subsidized housing projects, and even homeless students. Eight out of the 11 public schools
have more than 50% of their student population participating in free and reduced lunch programs
and five schools receive Title I funds (Accreditation Report Flagler County School District,
2013, p. 3).
Regardless of the challenges that a particular LEA may face, school districts are
responsible for the success of each student. It is the job of the superintendent of the school
district to oversee the implementation of curriculum within schools, which are led by principals
(USDOE, 2008). Principals are the ground level of leadership because they have the most
contact with teachers who are responsible for educating the students (Marzano, 2008). The
learning environment, the culture of the school, the quality of the teachers, and the ultimate
outcomes for students fall under the direct supervision of individual school principals (Marzano,
2008).
The current superintendent of the small and rural district associated with this study has
been in office since February 2014. Before serving as superintendent, he held the position of
deputy superintendent and served as the acting superintendent for a transitional year after the
former superintendent suffered a debilitating health crisis. The current superintendent has a
reputation for his transformational vision for education and has initiated several large-scale
13
projects focused on improving teaching and learning in unconventional ways. One of this
superintendent’s the first official acts was to modify the district vision statement to include
verbiage about being creative and innovative in the way we educate students. The mission of the
district also includes language that underscores the importance of innovative thinking, safe
learning environments, and the empowerment of students to reach their full potential as
responsible, ethical, and productive citizens in a diverse and changing world (Flagler Schools,
2015).
This small and rural district follows the typical national student progression plan,
meaning students progress through the education system according to age. While many states
offer voluntary pre-kindergarten for four year olds, mandatory school attendance is not required
until the age of five and begins with kindergarten (USDOE, 2008). Students who are
progressing according to the state prescribed volume of proficiency of standards per year
progress one grade per year through a system of 13 grades (kindergarten, then grades 1-12) and
graduate around the age of 18. State educational standards are regulated by the state’s
Department of Education. However, the curriculum that is used to implement the instruction of
those standards is a local decision made by the superintendent and implemented by the principals
at the schools. States vary in their systems of accountability for standards implementation but
most use some system of student assessment to determine the degree to which standards are
properly implemented. All states must assess students in reading and math annually (Grades 3-
8) to determine whether students have achieved mastery of the state-prescribed standards for
each grade level (USDOE, 2008). Each state sets its own cut scores that indicate a passing score
on the end of the year assessment that measures student progress and governs options for how
14
LEAs remediate students who do not demonstrate proficiency. The state also offers curricular
and other designation options for students who show promise for acceleration, but the ultimate
decisions for how to remediate or accelerate students is in the hands of the superintendent of the
district who often delegates immediate decisions of student eligibility to principals of the
schools.
In addition to normal pupil progression, the district of focus also offers a third–12th grade
gifted education program to students who qualify as gifted (per IQ test); gifted services in the
district include honors, advanced placement (AP), International Baccalaureate (IB), and college
dual-enrollment programs (Flagler Schools, 2015). The district also hosts a division of New
Tech Network of Schools, as a school within a school.
The school district maintains high standards of accountability for all programs and
services and was reaccredited in 2013 by the AdvancED Accreditation Commission. Formed in
2006, AdvancED consists of the following institutions:
x North Central Association Commission on Accreditation and School
Improvement (NCA CASI),
x Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Council on Accreditation School
Improvement (SACS CASI),
x National Study of School Evaluation (NSSE), and
x Northwest Accreditation Commission (AdvancED, 2015).
Accreditation is an additional, voluntary process that schools may pursue in order to promote the
quality of education offered within the school. Only a few select institutions conduct
organizational accreditations, which are recognized at the state and national level. The
15
accreditation process impacts all levels of educational institutions and is known for its ability to
guide student performance.
Positionality
This dissertation in practice is rooted in the process of action research, which is a means
by which an individual or team studies a phenomenon occurring within an organization, with the
intention to improve outcomes for the organization (Herr & Anderson, 2015).
Both of the authors of this study maintain employment within the small, rural district
described above. One author is a fine arts teacher while the second is an administrator. Working
collaboratively from these individual perspectives, this generated a more robust understanding of
the problem of practice, examining implications of the results from the perspectives of both the
teacher practitioner and the administrator practitioner.
Over the course of this study, the teacher-practitioner engaged with four colleagues who
were part of the pilot study. The teacher-practitioner and colleagues employed a curriculum that
focuses on teaching Florida Standards while implementing a 4C-rich curriculum that is supported
by explicit instruction of non-cognitive factors. The teacher-practitioner and colleagues tracked
student progress throughout implementation of the pilot and recorded anecdotal accounts of
students’ abilities to exhibit collaboration, communication, creativity, and critical thinking (4C
behaviors).
The administrator-practitioner focused on building a tool to assist teachers in
implementing curriculum rich in opportunities for developing collaboration, communication,
creativity, and critical thinking (4Cs) in students. The tool contained indicators that exemplify
16
implementation in each of the 4C areas and provides examples of implementation for multiple
areas of the curriculum.
Together, the teacher and administrator-practitioners approached this dissertation in
practice from the standpoint of what Herr and Anderson (2015) refer to as two organizational
“insiders,” collaborating to gather information that will inform the teaching practices happening
within the organization. As insiders in the organization, both practitioners were acutely aware
that this positionality requires reflection on, and careful consideration of, epistemology and
methodology (Herr & Anderson, 2015). Specific mechanisms for dealing with bias were
employed by using the guidelines for validity criteria proposed by Herr and Anderson (2015) as
well as triangulation of data, member validation (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), and validation
meetings (Bone, 1996).
History and Conceptualization of Education
The earliest documentation of the existence of North American public schools appears in
the early 1600s, with the intention of educating children concerning the principles of religion,
civility of life, and humane learning at no cost to participants (Dexter, 1919; Reese, 2005).
Historical records reflect the importance with which the early settlers regarded education.
Settlers were willing to endure a variety of physical hardships, but they were not willing to
compromise on educating their children in religion and literature (Dexter, 1919; Reese, 2005).
The mid-1600s brought about a more organized, elementary-focused public school in the Boston
area, establishing the concept of using tax dollars to support education and the foundation of
colleges and universities. The establishment of the first school board to oversee educational
17
policy, along with the first mandate to provide education to children of families within
communities, was also first documented in the mid-1600s. Initially, many students still did not
receive an education because the penalty, in dollars, for not providing a school to these families
was considerably cheaper than maintaining a school. Over time, the cost of the penalty increased
and more communities moved into compliance. Schools did not exist in the states south of
Virginia until the 18th century, a time when the United States saw a significant growth in
elementary schools, usually with a religious focus. Later, in the 18th century, the “Land
Ordinance of 1785” dictated that the western territories should be divided up into townships,
which would dedicate one section of townships to the maintenance of public education. The end
of the 18th century brought about the signing of the Bill of Rights, which contains no mention of
education. For this reason, control of education is still a function of the individual states, not the
federal government.
In 1821, the first public high school opened its doors in Boston, Massachusetts. In 1837,
the first state Board of Education was formed under the direction of Horace Mann. Horace
Mann believed in free (public) school for all and worked relentlessly to secure stable funding for
public education. The mid-1800s marked the period of the Civil War, which stalled progress in
education until 1867, when the Department of Education was founded in an effort to help states
create effective school systems.
The 1900s brought about many rapid changes that had significant impacts on education.
This began with World War I when the military did not have any method in place for measuring
the intellectual ability of its recruits. A team of psychologists under the direction of Robert
Yerkes created the Army Alpha and Beta test, establishing the groundwork for future
18
standardized assessments. In 1954, the United States Supreme Court ruled in the famous Brown
vs. the Board of Education that separate but equal educational facilities for people of different
races was inherently unequal. This ruling forced states to abandon segregation practices. Russia
launched Sputnik in 1957 which spawned the National Defense Education Act (NDEA),
increasing funding for science, math, and foreign language education (Bankston & Caldas,
2009). In 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was passed, along with
Head Start. Both the ESEA and Head Start constituted part of President Johnson’s “War on
Poverty” initiative and the beginnings of educational efforts to ensure that students from low
socioeconomic backgrounds receive opportunities to learn (Bankston & Caldas, 2009).
In the 1980s, the quality of education became the focus of educational reformers. In
1983, The National Commission on Excellence in Education issued a report titled “A Nation at
Risk,” which alerted the nation that we were no longer leading the way in education when
compared with our international peers, and called for immediate action to raise the bar in public
education (Reese, 2005). Subsequent mandates have been focused pointedly on the same goal:
raising the standard for education. Examples of these mandates include:
x Goals 2000: Educate America Act, provided resources to school districts to
achieve higher academic standards;
x No Child Left Behind (NCLB), mandated a standardized test to track student
achievement and ensure that all students reach proficiency by 2014 (Bankston &
Caldas, 2009); and
19
x American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Race to the Top) of 2009, designed to
drive reform in the K-12 public education sector (U.S. Department of Education,
2015).
The Race to the Top expenditure was designed to reward states that reformed their education
systems in the following areas: (a) adopting standards and assessments that prepare students to
succeed in both college and the workplace, (b) building data systems that measure student
growth and success to be used toward improving instruction, (c) retaining and rewarding
effective teachers and principals, and (d) turning around their lowest performing schools (U.S.
Department of Education, 2015).
Historical Context
National
Concerns about the United States remaining the frontrunner in education are not new.
With the launch of Sputnik in the 1950s, the United States began a campaign to increase the
aptitude of American students in an effort to prevent other countries from emerging as world
leaders in the race to space (Bybee, 1997). Further concerns emerged in the 1980s when the
National Commission on Excellence in Education first published A Nation at Risk, the report that
first exposed the shortcomings of the education system in America in comparison to other
countries (Gardner, 1983). These two historical events were critical points in education in the
United States because they reflected the need for improvement in both practical, tangible
achievement (Sputnik) and in theoretical, data based achievement (A Nation at Risk). Two
20
additional noteworthy efforts toward reform occurred in the early 21st century. The No Child
Left Behind legislation, as well as Goals 2000 were attempts to address the gradual decline of the
educational standing of the United States by improving achievement among all students
(Jorgensen & Hoffman, 2003). Another recent reform effort occurred in 2010, with the Common
Core movement. Many states initially opted to adopt the more rigorous, application-based
standards in hopes of propelling student achievement to the top of the international comparison
assessments (Mathis, 2010). However, many of the states initially poised to adopt and
implement the standards have modified or withdrawn their support for the standards (Kober &
Rentner, 2012).
In spite of all of the reform efforts that have been enacted in the US, the problem of an
undereducated and underprepared workforce still remains. In a 2013 Phi Delta Kappa/ Gallup
poll, 7 out of every 10 participants who completed the survey indicated that they did not feel that
students who graduate high school are ready for college or labor force entry. Furthermore, a
cumulative look at scores on international assessments (e.g., NAEP, TIMSS, PIRLS, PISA) show
that, while the United States has made some slight improvements in scores over the years, those
improvements have been mediocre when compared with the progress of other countries
(Hanushek, Peterson, & Woessmann, 2012).
Local
Although the performance of the United States, as a whole, in education is middling
when compared to other nations, there are some states that have had success in improving their
performance over time. From 1992-2011, Florida was one of four states that showed significant
21
growth on international assessments. The growth over this time period is equivalent to
approximately two years of academic learning (Hanushek et al., 2012). However, that success
was short lived, as announced in Education Week’s 2015 Quality Counts report, which compares
state assessment outcomes, chances for student success, and education finance, ranked Florida as
28th in the United States. Florida student achievement ranking, in this report, remained seventh
in the nation (Education Week, 2015). Graduation rates have also been touted as remarkable, as
Florida’s on-time high school graduation rate has risen to 76% (NCES, 2013).
The setting of this study—a small, rural district—had been one of the three fastest
growing counties in the nation prior to the recession of 2006. The influx of new residents was
predominantly driven by the housing construction industry. The median age of the state is 39.4,
while the district has a median age of 51.4 and an unemployment rate of just over 6% (Economic
Research, 2015). The median household income in the district is just over $47,000, exceeding
slightly the state average of just under $47,000. Despite a median household income that places
it in the top half of all Florida counties, 16.6% of Hurricane County residents live below the
poverty level, which is slightly above the state average of 16.3% (United States Census Bureau,
2015).
The most current data available reported a 0.9% school dropout rate for the district; the
state average was 1.9% (Florida Department of Education, 2015). In the 2013-2104 school year,
administrators issued 844 out-of-school suspensions, 811 in-school suspensions for the 2013-
2014 school year, and zero expulsions (Florida Department of Education, 2015). The district
also posted a 77.8% graduation rate for the 2013-2014 academic year, which is above the state
rate of 76.1%.
22
Factors that Impact the Problem
Data
The United States spends more money on education than most other nations (Hanushek et
al., 2012); the return on this considerable investment has been disappointing. For example, in a
2010 Achieve report comparing international educational outcomes, only 6% of all students
tested performed above average in mathematics (Hanushek et al., 2010), ranking the US behind
30 other nations in mathematics. A similar study conducted in 2011 showed that only 32% of
eighth grade students in the US performed at grade level in mathematics, placing Americans
behind 31 other nations (Peterson et al., 2011). This study focused on programs that operate
within the US that are achieving, or are close to achieving, on grade level results while satisfying
the requirements of the US Department of Education.
Potential Causes of the Problem
Within the US, matters of public concern, such as education, often are brought to light
within the legislative branch of government. Typically, issues emerge as legislative
platforms. The appropriate level of legislature (federal or state) hears the concerns of the public
and often enacts laws that address the matter. Despite their lack of canonical knowledge of
education, legislators serve as a source of education-related reform efforts (McDonnell, 2005).
With increasing accountability in education arising from legislatures around the country, the
focus of instruction consists of preparing students to demonstrate proficiency on state-mandated
assessments. While research shows that using formative assessments, and sharing subsequent
23
feedback with students, can have a significant increase in student achievement (Larsen, Butler, &
Roediger, 2009; Roediger & Karpicke, 2006; Turner, 2014; William, Lee, Harrsion, & Black,
2004), literature suggests that the current focus on assessment is not well-aligned with the needs
of the workforce or postsecondary institutions (Achieve, 2013, 2015; Herman, 2007). The focus
on assessment outcomes rather than quality curriculum is further evidenced by data showing the
high occurrence of postsecondary failure and dropout rates among students who were considered
high achieving in high school (Honken & Ralsten, 2013).
Proposed Framework
In order to produce a more prepared group of students who are ready to take on the
challenges of the 21st century workforce this study proposes that a three-pronged framework
should be employed in schools. The framework consists of three interdependent components:
(a) curriculum that equally promotes the 4Cs of 21st century learning, (b) explicit instruction in
non-cognitive factors, and (c) transformational leadership that supports teachers, processes, and
structures. In short, this framework supports the instruction of teachers in curriculum and
teaching strategies that will, in turn, engage students in work that addresses the 4Cs as well as
the development of non-cognitive factors (academic behaviors, academic mindset, perseverance,
social skills, and learning strategies).
Curriculum
Providing relevant curriculum rich in opportunities to engage in critical thinking can only
be accomplished through a drastic shift in pedagogy (Fullan, 2012, Pink, 2006). Under the
24
current tyranny of assessment and accountability, schools focus on compliance, not creativity
(Pink, 2006). In addition, the framework proposed in this study makes possible the fulfillment of
the requirements for a rigorous curriculum while still maintaining interest in the work. A
curriculum rich in authentic problem solving, opportunities to use technology, and prospects for
meaningful collaborations are the hallmarks of 21st century learning skills; proficiency in these
skills will help students to be successful in today’s world (Boyer & Crippen, 2014; Donovan,
Green & Mason, 2014, Fullan, 2012).
Both students and teachers need to be engaged in, and motivated by, the curriculum in
order for optimal learning to occur (Hattie, 2013, Pintrich, 2003). Allowing students to engage
in collaborative problem-solving that is rigorous, authentic, and integrated with technology
creates opportunities for teachers to move from a classroom with teacher-centered focus to a
student centered focus, shifting ownership of learning to students (Rodel Foundation, 2014). The
faithful implementation of this type of learning also creates the impetus for personalization of
learning, instruction that allows students to engage in instruction that is specific to their
academic needs and personal interests (Boyer & Crippen, 2014, Fullan, 2012; Rodel Foundation,
2014).
Non-Cognitive Factors
A curriculum rich in opportunities for students to engage in the 4Cs (collaboration,
creativity, critical thinking, and communication) constitutes an excellent step toward preparing
students for the global workforce that awaits them. However, students of today are significantly
different from students in past educational settings. With advances in technology and the
25
globalization of society, students have access to information instantly (Heckman, 2007, Kraut et
al., 1998, Stromquist, 2002). As a result, students lack skills in perseverance and are reluctant to
engage in any activity that is not personalized and tailored to their own interests (Babcock &
Marks, 2010; Freedman, 2007; Kolikant, 2010; Raizen, 1997).
In order to successfully launch and maintain a curriculum that requires students to
communicate, think critically and creatively, and effectively collaborate with others, students
must first learn how to engage in this kind of work. We propose that non-cognitive factors are
prerequisite skills that can ensure a successful implementation of 4C-rich curriculum. Literature
identifies five categories of non-cognitive factors: (a) academic behaviors, (b) academic
perseverance, (c) academic mindsets, (d) learning strategies, and (e) social skills (Farrington et
al., 2014).
Typically, successful students demonstrate academic behaviors that qualify as
“conscientious” and “hardworking”; these behaviors include regular class attendance,
participation in class activities, studying, and attending to homework in a timely
manner. Research indicates that increasing the frequency of these behaviors in a particular class
is not only possible (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Skinner, 1953; Staats, 1963) but also typically
improves the student’s academic outcomes (Farrington et al., 2014).
Academic perseverance is the ability of an individual to continue to work on a problem or
task that is not immediately solved. The hallmark of academic perseverance is the ability to
maintain the motivation to see the task to completion, even when unexpected challenges arise
during the process (Farrington et al., 2014). Academic perseverance is often associated with the
concept of grit, or the ability to maintain focus on one task for a long period of time (Duckworth,
26
Peterson, Matthews, & Kelly, 2007). Studies have shown that individuals who exhibit grit tend
to be highly successful and experts in their fields (Duckworth, 2009). While grit, itself, has been
identified as a possibly innate and somewhat fixed personality trait (Srivastava, John, Gosling, &
Potter, 2003), research indicates that it is possible to teach perseverant behaviors even when they
are not innate to an individual (McCrae & Costa, 1994; Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000). More
specifically, studies related to academic perseverance have shown a moderate relationship
between perseverance and student performance outcomes (Farrington et al., 2014). However, a
closer examination of the limited research shows that student perseverance is highly influenced
by the classroom and school environment and tends to mimic the conditions in which the student
is placed (Dweck, Walton, & Cohen, 2011).
Carol Dweck, in her 2006 bestselling book Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, has
popularized the idea of the malleability of academic mindsets. Mindsets can be fixed or open to
growth (Dweck, 2006). While there are a multitude of academic mindsets, there are four that
have been shown to contribute positively to student academic outcomes (Farrington et al.,
2014). The four academic mindsets include the following:
x Belonging to an academic community (Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Ryan & Deci,
2000; Wentzel & Asher, 1995; Wentzel & Caldwell, 1997),
x The growth of ability with effort (Cury, Elliott, DaFonseca, & Moller, 2006;
Dweck & Leggett, 1998),
x Belief in the likelihood of success (Bandura, 1986; Bandura & Schunk, 1981;
Bouffard-Bouchard, 1990; Pajares, 1996), and
27
x Belief in the work as valuable to the student immediately or in the future
(Atkinson, 1957; Eccles et al., 1983; Wigfiedl, 1994; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992).
In order for non-cognitive factors to affect academic performance outcomes, instructors
must engage the cognitive processes of their students (Farrington et al., 2014); this is done
through the implementation of learning strategies such as metacognition, goal setting, and time
management (Crede & Kuncel, 2008; Flavell, 1979; Hacker, Dunlosky, & Graesser, 2009;
Zimmerman, 2001; Zimmerman & Schunk, 1989). The use of these strategies allows students to
track their progress towards a goal or academic outcome and provides the motivation necessary
to feed academic perseverance and maintain a growth mindset (Paris, Lipson, & Wixon, 1983;
Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990; Pokay & Blumenfeld, 1990).
The final non-cognitive factor shown to improve academic outcomes is social skills. The
term social skill refers to the ability of an individual to work collaboratively in a way that is
viewed by peers as socially acceptable (Gresham & Elliott, 1990). Social skills must be
considered a vital non-cognitive factor because these skills play a pivotal role in the effectiveness
of the other non-cognitive factors (Teo, Carlson, Mathieu, Egeland, & Sroufe, 1996).
In this framework, the researchers propose that the development of students’ non-
cognitive factors is a critical component to ensure the successful implementation of a 4C
(creativity, collaboration, communication, and critical thinking) rich curriculum. Table 1 shows
the alignment of each of the 4C skills with prerequisite skills that students need to exhibit before
they can successfully engage in the 4C skill, as well as the supporting non-cognitive factors that
develop the prerequisite skills (Figure 2).
28
Table 1 4C and Non-Cognitive Alignment
21st Century Skills
Description
Prerequisite skill
Supporting Non-Cognitive Factors
Communication
Students articulate their learning through both oral and written communication
Adequate self-efficacy and self confidence Willingness to share perspectives and accept opposing views Ability to make thinking audible or written
Academic Mindset Academic Behaviors Learning Strategies
Collaboration
Students work with other students to accomplish an academic task, regardless of their similarities or differences
Active listening skills Openness to opposing perspectives Ability to compromise to enhance work products
Social Skills Academic Mindset Learning Strategies
Creativity
Students generate alternate pathways to solutions, students think about how problems can be looked at from different perspectives
Willing to take risks by thinking differently about problems and solutions to problems Willing to learn from failure
Academic Mindset Learning Strategies
Critical Thinking
Students solve problems Academic
that are complex, have multiple variables, or require more than one step to a viable solution
Willing to engage with a challenging problem Willing to persist in efforts to solve problems over long periods of time Willing to learn from failure
Perseverance Learning Strategies
29
Figure 2. 4C and non-cognitive alignment chart.
Leadership
The guidance of a highly qualified authority is necessary within this proposed
model. Research indicates that, while high academic standards, encouragement, and a positive
school culture are variables that significantly increase the probability of student and teacher
success, the absence of a competent authority figure has the capacity to neutralize the impacts of
these variable on student success (Bass, 1985; Bennis & Nanus, 2004; Hindt, 2012; Mega et al.,
2014; Waters, Marzano & McNulty, 2003).
The inspiration to make the change from traditional approaches to teaching and learning
(teacher-centered) to a new student-centered model requires stakeholder buy in. Creative tension
30
is one way to effectively inspire stakeholders; articulating a vision for an organization and
contrasting that vision with the current reality of the organization induces this creative tension
(Senge, 1990). In the case of this pilot, the current reality involves the struggle to implement
new Florida Standards that are significantly more rigorous than previous standards (FLDOE,
2015) and the continuous assessment of this instruction through mandated testing that can
occupy up to 5% of the time a student is in school (Florida Statute, 1008.22). In this current
environment, many teachers struggle with implementation and develop a tunnel vision that
focuses on the preparation of students for assessment instead of mastery of content and
application of the content (Boud, 2000; Shepherd, 2000; Tomlinson, 2000). One of the first
tasks a leader must complete in order to implement this framework consists of weaving the
current reality into an opportunity to achieve new and better outcomes with students. Generating
and maintaining this creative tension empowers stakeholders by generating a sense of shared
vision and sustains inspirational motivation to achieve that vision (Bass, 1985; Bass & Riggio,
2010; Burns, 1978). The leader in this new educational environment must articulate—and re-
articulate—this vision of the organization in a shared language (Jackson, 2000) and engage in
regular honest self-reflection (Schein, 2004). Implementing these strategies will also support the
positive culture that is needed to meet the demands of a rigorous curriculum.
In addition to communicating a vision and maintaining creative tension, the leader must
engage in everyday communication with all stakeholders that is transparent and honest (Scott,
2004). Involvement in all levels of the organization and maintaining constant communication
with all stakeholders are two important ways to ensure that transparency is maintained within an
31
organization (Scott, 2004). In this model, the school leader maintains regular points of contact
with the students, teachers, parents, and community members.
In this time of turbulence in education, any leader in the field would be remiss to not
consider motivation as an imperative piece of the equation that leads to positive student and
teacher outcomes (Ryan & Deci, 2000). In order to support continuous improvement, the leaders
of this model school must spend significant time, effort, and energy creating a positive learning
culture within their organizations (Schein, 2004). The culture created by maintaining a positive
and collaborative environment can set the tone for the growth of the organization and can
motivate all stakeholders to continually strive to reach their optimal potential (Schein, 2004,
Wang & Eccles, 2013). In an ideal framework, teachers enjoy plentiful opportunities to
collaborate and engage in critical conversations with one another. Lesson studies, instructional
rounds, and professional learning communities (PLC) are all opportunities to facilitate
conversation, provide non-cognitive support for one another, and foster continuous improvement
among all teachers and leaders within the school. This culture of support nurtures a regard for
teachers as professionals who have choices and opportunities to improve their craft (Rodel
Foundation, 2014). Positive school culture offering these non-cognitive environmental,
behavioral, and emotional supports, coupled with cognitive supports, positively impacts both
student and teacher performance (Wang & Eccles, 2013). Students and teachers who feel
challenged by rigorous and relevant curriculum but, at the same time, supported by consideration
of non-cognitive factors are more likely to take the academic risks necessary be successful in
their learning journey (Pintrich, 2003). These risks lead to positive experiences that nurture
greater self-efficacy in both students and teachers (Pintrich, 2003).
32
While there are many other aspects of the problem of students’ weak critical thinking
abilities, the researchers’ proposed framework focused on curriculum, non-cognitive factors, and
leadership begins to break the trend of monotony that has existed in education for many years.
This model, emerging from research, has a high probability of transforming teaching and
learning for stakeholders by creating new opportunities for cognitive and behavioral engagement
in relevant and rigorous curriculum.
Pilot
The intention of the pilot study is to explore the problem further by identifying, on a
small scale, whether implementing supports based on strong theory will address the problem of
students’ lack of 4C skills. Because current curriculum provides students few opportunities to
develop and refine their skills in collaboration, creative thinking, effective communication, and
critical thinking (the 4Cs), this dissertation in practice will address curriculum and strategies
(connected to Florida Standards) that teachers can use to engage students in developing these
skills. The small and rural district in northeast Florida, where the pilot was conducted, supports
this project by allowing the pilot to be conducted on site at the target school. The superintendent
of the school district was not only aware of the pilot but has asked to be informed of the findings,
as he is interested the results of the implementation of a curriculum that strengthens the requisite
21st century skills among students in his district.
The pilot has been designed to address the research questions that inform the problem:
33
1. Do students exhibit collaboration, creative thinking, communication, and critical
thinking skills (4Cs) when the curriculum provides opportunity to engage the students in
work where they can demonstrate the 4Cs?
2. Does explicitly teaching students non-cognitive factors (academic mindset, academic
behaviors, perseverance, social skills, learning strategies) influence their ability to
effectively demonstrate 4C skills?
The pilot for this dissertation in practice was conducted in a K-6 elementary school
located within the small and rural district described in the organizational context. Participants
included science teachers in selected fifth grade classrooms. Teachers measured student
achievement based on instruction that includes a 4C rich curriculum that was supported by
explicit instruction of non-cognitive factors rooted in Florida Standards. Teachers described
qualitatively their students’ progress through anecdotal accounts and tracked student progress
quantitatively through formative and summative assessments. The work of the teachers
informed what elements should be included in the framework.
The goal of the pilot was to demonstrate whether students were capable of showing
proficiency in the 4Cs when they were provided with opportunities to engage in work that
included content that addressed the 4Cs as well as non-cognitive academic support. The
effectiveness of the pilot was measured by whether the teachers’ anecdotal accounts included
reports of students showing growth in their ability to exhibit 4C skills, as well as the growth of
students in their understanding of the content, as measured by formative and summative
assessments. Pilot implementation began in January of 2016 and concluded in February of
2016.
34
Data
Teachers involved in the pilot provided information through both surveys and
reflections. Surveys revealed teacher perceptions of students’ abilities in the 4C (creativity,
critical thinking, communication, and collaboration) areas, teacher knowledge of non-cognitive
factors, teacher implementation of 4C-rich curriculum, and teacher implementation of explicit
instruction of non-cognitive factors. Through the implementation of the pilot, teachers tracked
student results on formative and summative assessments (quantitative reports) as well as
students’ abilities to exhibit 4C behaviors (qualitative reports). This data was analyzed following
protocols for maintaining confidentiality of participants. Results of the analysis were provided to
stakeholders of interest including teachers, administrators of the pilot schools, and the
superintendent of the school district in which the pilot took place.
Methods
Science teachers from fifth grade classrooms in the pilot school were formally invited to
participate in the pilot through an email invitation. Teachers chose to participate or decline the
offer for participation. Teachers who responded positively to the initial email invitation were
invited to a 30-minute overview of the study that included a review of the unit to be implemented
with students. All teachers who attended the overview were formally invited, via email, to
participate in the study. Teachers who indicated their willingness to participate were provided
with a confidentiality agreement, as well as a pre-survey to assess their perceptions of their
students’ abilities to exemplify the 4Cs (creativity, critical thinking, communication, and
35
collaboration) and non-cognitive factors (academic behaviors, perseverance, academic mindset,
learning strategies, social skills).
Teachers were asked to implement a science-of-sound 4C unit in their classrooms, along
with the specific activities that provided explicit instruction in non-cognitive factors. During
implementation, teachers provided reflections that addressed their students’ progress in
exhibiting 4C skills (creativity, critical thinking, communication, and collaboration) and their
challenges implementing the 4C rich curriculum in their classrooms. In their reflections,
teachers will include reflections on results of students’ formative and summative assessments on
the content addressed by the 4C rich unit. Finally, teachers completed a post survey to show
changes in their perceptions of students’ abilities to exhibit 4C skills (creativity, critical thinking,
communication, and collaboration) and non-cognitive factors (academic behaviors, perseverance,
academic mindset, learning strategies, and social skills; Table 2).
Table 2 Pilot Summary
Outcome Participants Methods Stakeholders Timeline
Evidence to inform the problem by showing whether students’ abilities to exhibit 4C skills can be enhanced with a 4C rich curriculum that is supported by non-cognitive factor instruction.
5th and 6th grade teachers in the pilot school in a small and rural district in Northeast Florida
Mixed-methods. Qualitative - anecdotal reflections to include students’ ability to exhibit 4C skills and response to non-cognitive instruction. Quantitative - student growth and proficiency on assessments, teacher survey results to reflect perceptions and knowledge of 4C rich curriculum.
Teachers Students Parents Administrators Superintendent Community and District-based businesses
January 2016 - February 2016
36
CHAPTER 2 PILOT STUDY: THE SCIENCE OF SOUND
The complex problem of practice that drives this study emerged because current
curriculum provides students few opportunities to develop and refine skills so necessary in the
21st century workplace: (a) collaboration, (b) creative thinking, (c) effective communication, and
(d) critical thinking (the 4Cs). This dissertation in practice examined curriculum and strategies
(connected to Florida Standards) that teachers can use to engage students in developing these
21st century skills.
The researchers designed a pilot study to determine how providing students with the
opportunity to engage in curriculum may impact their development of 4C skills (critical thinking,
creative thinking, collaboration, and communication). This type of instruction is not
commonplace in the school district that was used for this study, nor is it commonplace in most
classrooms across the United States (International Youth Foundation, 2012; OECD, 2009;
Peterson, Fennema, Carpenter, & Loef, 1989; Saavedra, 2012). The result of this paucity of
instruction has led to workforce concerns and prospective employers’ support for developing
“soft skills” among the nation's youth (Binkley et al., 2010); Saavedra, 2012).
While current legislative mandates demand a strong focus on assessment and
accountability (Cawthon, 2004; Crowder & Konle, 2015; Kohn, 2001), there are curriculum
programs that do emphasize the development of 4C skills in conjunction with course content.
These curricula often fall into the category of project-based learning (PBL) and show promise in
developing students’ 4C skills; teachers receive extended opportunities for professional learning
and students’ progress is followed over significant periods of time (Finklestein, Hanson, Huang,
37
Hirschman, & Huang, 2010; Hixson, Ravitz, & Whisman, 2012; Mergendoller, Maxwell, &
Bellismo, 2006).
Boss, Larmer, and Mergendoller (2013) of the Buck Institute for Education (BIE) cited
4C skills as one of the eight competencies that students must develop in order to engage
effectively in PBL. The other seven competencies include: (a) significant content, (b) inquiry,
(c) driving questions, (d) the need to know an answer to the question, (e) voice and choice, (f)
revision and reflection, and (g) opportunities to present information to a public audience (Boss et
al., 2013; Larmer et al., & 2015). While a variety of definitions of PBL exist, all mandate some
form of the 4C skills.
Despite research that confirms the positive outcomes associated with curriculum that
embeds development of students’ 4C skills, K-12 curriculum provides inadequate opportunities
for students to exhibit these skills (Silver, Mesa, Morris, Star, & Benken, 2009; Tyack,
1995). This gap between research and practice is especially evident in the district where this
pilot was being conducted. The teachers involved in this study cited several reasons why they do
not typically use curriculum that develops students’ 4C skills: (a) time for planning, (b) time for
implementation, (c) students inability to perform tasks requiring higher thinking, and (d)
difficulty of planning activities for student learning. The reasons cited by teachers in this pilot
echo the scholarly literature (Schleicher, 2012).
Research has shown that non-cognitive factors are significant predictors of success in
college and in the workforce (Lleras, 2008; Tracey & Sedlacek, 1982; University of Chicago,
2011). Despite this strong link, researchers postulated that teachers often feel frustrated and
overwhelmed with implementation of curriculum embedded with 4C skills; many students today
38
have few opportunities to develop their non-cognitive skills, exacerbating teachers’
frustrations. In order to attend to these deficiencies and provide a more productive
implementation of curriculum that develops 4C skills, the pilot unit of study was designed to
embed the development of non-cognitive factors (academic mindset, academic behaviors,
perseverance, social skills, learning strategies) as a scaffold for students to achieve success in
executing 4C skills.
Pilot Rationale
The pilot was conducted at a school in a small and rural district in northeast Florida. The
school has a total population of approximately 1000 students in pre-kindergarten through sixth
grade. Students who attend the school reside in the district’s beachside community, which
includes residences that include government funded Section 8 housing projects as well as beach
homes valued at over a million dollars (“Flagler Beach,” 2016). The student population is fairly
even split between males and females, the majority of whom are white (75%), with the
remaining 25% relatively evenly split among Black, Asian, and multiracial students. All
teachers at Oceanside Elementary are classified as “Highly Qualified” by the state of Florida,
which means that the school holds qualifications that meet the state requirements for teaching the
grade levels they have been assigned to teach (FLDOE, 2016). Teachers in fifth grade were
recruited to participate in the pilot study because the content standards of the pilot’s unit of study
aligned best with the 5th grade Florida Standards curriculum.
The pilot was designed to answer two exploratory questions:
39
x Do students exhibit collaboration, creative thinking, effective communication, and
critical thinking skills (4Cs) when the curriculum provides opportunity to engage
the students in work where they can demonstrate 4Cs?
x How does explicitly teaching students non-cognitive factors (academic mindset,
academic behaviors, perseverance, social skills, learning strategies) influence
students' abilities to effectively demonstrate 4C skills?
Goals of the Pilot
The researchers developed two goals for the pilot:
x Teachers will deliver a 10 day unit of instruction that is rich in opportunities for students
to collaborate, think critically, think creatively, and communicate effectively while
providing scaffolding by embedding direct instruction in non-cognitive factors (academic
mindset, academic behaviors, perseverance, social skills, and learning strategies).
x Teachers will reflect on their students' growth in exhibiting collaboration, critical
thinking, creative thinking, and communication skills, as well as mastery of the content.
Expected Outcomes of the Pilot
There were two expected outcomes from this pilot:
x Teachers will perceive growth in students' abilities to collaborate, think critically, think
creatively, and communicate effectively when teachers deliver a lesson that requires
students to practice these skills.
40
x Teachers will perceive growth in students' ability to show mastery of the content
associated with the pilot’s unit of instruction.
These outcomes were based on studies that have focused on PBL as a means of
developing students’ 4C (collaboration, creative thinking, effective communication, and critical
thinking) skills. In order to provide scaffolding for students in their abilities to exhibit 4C skills,
this pilot implemented the unique approach of using instruction in non-cognitive
factors (academic mindset, academic behaviors, perseverance, social skills, and learning
strategies) as a scaffold to move students toward proficiency.
There is a gap in research linking non-cognitive factors and 4C skills, so the researchers
examined the scholarly literature focused on the development of 4C skills and non-cognitive
factors, each in isolation from the other. This dissertation in practice offers a framework for
using non-cognitive factors as prerequisite skills that can move students toward proficiency in
their 4C skills.
The limited research provides accounts of PBL implementation in elementary grades
through medical school and shows positive long-term learning outcomes when specific
measurements are employed (Ravitz, 2009; Strobel & van Barnevled, 2009; Vernon & Blake,
1993; Walker & Leary, 2009). Interestingly, the results of PBL studies are not consistently
associated with raising students’ standardized achievement scores (Hattie, 2009; Ravitz, 2009;
Walker & Leary, 2009) but do show promise in promoting more in-depth understanding of
concepts and development of 4C skills (Barron & Darling-Hammond, 2008; Kivunja, 2014;
Trilling & Fadel, 2009). To date, research on the impacts of PBL curriculum identifies
significant deficits in measures that can effectively assess the outcomes of implementation
41
(Albanese & Mitchell, 1993; Belland, French, & Ertner, 2009; Bransford & Schwartz, 1999;
Ravitz, 2009). In addition, the scholarly literature suggests several appropriate outcome
measures: (a) deep content learning and problem solving ability, (b) development of 4C skills,
(c) increased student engagement, and (d) improved long-term academic outcomes (Association
of American Colleges and Universities, 2002; Barron & Darling-Hammond, 2008; Fredricks,
Blumenfield, Friedel, & Paris, 2004; Newmann & Associates, 1996; Partnership for 21st Century
Skills, 2007; Ravitz, 2009; Silva, 2008).
To date, work that has been done to improve students’ non-cognitive factors (academic
mindset, academic behaviors, perseverance, social skills, and learning strategies) has focused
mainly on content-based academic outcomes and on the interplay of factors involved in
improving academic outcomes (Conrad, 2006; Duckworth & Seligaman, 2005; Dweck, 2011;
University of Chicago, 2011). Building students’ skills in each of the non-cognitive factors
(academic mindset, academic behaviors, perseverance, social skills, and learning strategies)
requires the teacher to address each skill explicitly; the teacher must also embed opportunities for
students to engage in metacognitive activity that reinforces the progress they are making toward
successfully mastering these skills (University of Chicago, 2011).
Positionality
Both of the authors of this study maintain employment within the small and rural district
where the pilot school was located. One author is a fine arts teacher, while the second is an
administrator. Working collaboratively while bringing these individual perspectives, the
research process generated a robust understanding of the problem of practice because the study
42
ultimately is informed by the insights of both a teacher-practitioner and an administrator-
practitioner.
Together, these two teacher and administrator practitioners have approached this
dissertation in practice from what Herr and Anderson (2015) call organizational “insiders,”
collaborating to gather information to inform the teaching practices occurring within the
organization. In more traditional dissertations, conducting research in one’s own setting may
undermine the validity of the results because of the natural biases the researchers bring to the
work (Glesne & Peshkin, 1992). However, as insiders in the organization, both practitioners
were able to approach the problem within the organizational context, and, as a result, ensure that
conclusions and solutions were appropriate, ethical, and pragmatic for the organization. The
teacher-researcher was a participant in the pilot, noting the struggles and successes that came
with implementation of the 4C-focused unit of instruction. The administrator-researcher did not
participate directly in the pilot but did analyze the participants’ reflections and the detailed notes
from the focus groups. Together, the researchers collaborated to build a framework by which
teachers can move toward implementing curriculum that will also develop students’ 4C
skills. The researchers monitored bias by maintaining active reflective practices along with
careful considerations of epistemology and methodology (Herr & Anderson, 2015). Specifically,
the researchers employed mechanisms for dealing with possible biases by using the guidelines
for validity criteria proposed by Herr and Anderson (2015) as well as triangulation of data,
member validation (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), and validation meetings with our advisor and other
doctoral candidates in our cohort (Bone, 1996).
43
Methods
This dissertation in practice addressed the lack of students’ abilities to exhibit 4C skills
because of a lack of opportunity to learn those skills. This work was rooted in the process of
action research, defined as a means by which an individual, or individuals, study a phenomenon
occurring within an organization, with the intention to improve outcomes for the organization
(Herr & Anderson, 2015). Specifically, this dissertation in practice involves the researchers
actually participating in the research. This approach is called participatory action research and
was developed in the 1970s by Paulo Freire. Freire advocated for the concept of knowing by
being part of something and not just by talking about something. These ideas precipitated the
development of participatory action research projects throughout many developing countries
(Herr & Anderson, 2015). In addition, Kemmis and McTaggart (2005) underscored the
importance of research involving practitioners who are immersed in the context of the problem,
invested in the problem, and are participants in the research process. While formally considered
participatory action research, this work also parallels the transformative worldview tradition
because it is latticed within the politics of current educational reform legislation and involves the
researchers participating in the action meant to bring about change (Creswell, 2014).
While statistical analysis and quantitative analysis are often very useful in determining
outcomes of work involving mass production of goods, issues pertaining to the education of
children do not always lend themselves to a productive use of this type of method of research
(Cuban, 2004, as cited in Anderson & Herr, 2015). For this reason, the researchers chose
qualitative methods of data collection for this study.
44
Following Creswell’s (2014) indicators of qualitative research, data were collected in the
workplace of the participants, rendering the setting naturalistic. Multiple data sources supported
the triangulation of information. These sources of information included the following:
x Participating teachers’ pre-implementation lesson plans,
x Participating teachers’ anecdotal accounts of their experiences during the pilot,
x Conversations during focus group sessions,
x Photos of student products from the pilot unit of study, and
x Participating teachers’ reflections on student outcomes.
Finally, both researchers explicitly and reflexively identified biases and background experiences
that could have shaped interpretations of the pilot study or resulting data. Data analysis was
conducted through the duration of the pilot study and beyond. The researchers examined
documents, anecdotal accounts, and narratives from focus groups to aggregate data into themes
that were used to further inform the problem, provide insight into conclusions, and initiate more
pragmatic solutions to the problem of practice.
The 10-day unit of instruction used in this pilot study, The Science of Sound (Appendix
A), is a PBL-driven unit of instruction and meets the standards of the Buck Institute for
Education (Larmer et al., 2015). This instructional unit contains embedded direct instruction in
non-cognitive factors as well as opportunities for students to reflect on the development of their
non-cognitive factors (Farrington et al., 2012).
Both the superintendent of the district and the principal of the school where the pilot was
conducted provided letters of approval and support for the study. The IRB process was followed
accordingly, and the study was determined to be “exempt.” Qualitative data were collected
45
throughout the pilot process in order to determine whether teachers perceived improvement in
students’ capacity to exhibit 4C skills. Improvement in students’ 4C skills was measured by
teachers’ perceptions of success; these included teachers’ citing specific improvements in
students’ abilities or noting the perceived improvement of students’ willingness to participate in
activities related to 4C skills. The researchers selected these measures based on the participatory
action research traditions of collaborative data analysis. Anderson and Herr (2015) noted the
participatory nature of action research expressed in its multiple phases. Since one of the
researchers is a participant in the study, both researchers felt it necessary to include the other
participants in the discussion of student progress. By involving the participants in the collection
of data and the analysis of student progress, the researchers built in a natural bias checkpoint
which helped to maintain the integrity of the study.
Pilot Participants
The researchers invited all fifth grade teachers at the Oceanside Elementary to participate
in the study (n= 8). After reviewing pilot requirements, five teachers decided to participate, all
of whom had been teaching for more than 10 years and were considered “Highly Qualified” by
the state of Florida to teach 5th grade. Two of the participating teachers were National Board
Certified, three have master's degrees or higher, and one teacher is a former Teacher of the Year
for the district. Furthermore, three of the five teachers reported having a basic understanding of
4C skills, and two reported having attempted implementation of PBL in the past.
All of the participating teachers reported and demonstrated (through conversation) a clear
understanding of the five non-cognitive factors: (a) social skills, (b) academic mindsets, (c)
46
perseverance, (d) academic behaviors, and (e) learning strategies. However, four of the five
teachers reported that they were unsure of how to apply these theories in practice, to support
classroom instruction (Table 3).
Table 3 Participant Experiences in Education
Teacher
Experience (Years)
Certification
Highest Degree Earned
4C Knowledge
Non- Cognitive Knowledge
A 17 Highly Qualified Bachelor No Yes
B 15 Highly Qualified Bachelor No Yes
C
20
Highly Qualified, National Board
Specialist
Yes, with previous implementation of
PBL
Yes, with knowledge of implementation
D
11
Highly Qualified, National Board
Masters Yes Yes
E 13 Highly Qualified Masters Yes, with previous implementation of
PBL
Yes
Implementation of the Pilot
All fifth grade teachers (n=8) at Oceanside Elementary were invited, via email, to
participate in the pilot. The researchers invited those teachers willing to participate in the study
to a preliminary meeting, where the researchers provided them with a 30-minute overview of the
project and a copy of the pilot’s unit of study. The potential participants who attended the
overview were then contacted, via email, with an invitation to participate in the study; this email
included the purpose and significance of the study. Candidates who responded affirmatively
were invited to an after-school professional learning experience. Candidates who did not reply
47
after one week or who responded “no” were eliminated from the list. The total number of
teachers who participated in the pilot was five.
Professional Learning
Participating teachers received training about using PBL to teach the 4Cs; this instruction
was coupled with an emphasis on the processes for explicitly teaching non-cognitive factors to
students and monitoring student progress through reflection. The researchers provided
professional learning to participants in order to ensure that the lesson was delivered as effectively
as possible. Some of the participants indicated that they had no knowledge of any curriculum
designed to develop students’ 4C skills or how to practically develop students’ non-cognitive
factors. Reuda and Pink (2011) noted that lack of knowledge leads to lack of self-efficacy,
which can contribute to a lower level of motivation arising from an inability to attain mastery.
Professional learning was provided in an effort to preserve the integrity of the lesson, while
simultaneously preventing teacher frustration.
During professional learning, participants were asked whether or not their students
demonstrated proficiency in 4C skills based on the following criteria developed using the
Partnership for 21st Century Learning (2007).
x Communication: all students are not only able to effectively communicate their
ideas in an articulate way, but can also exhibit exemplary listening skills,
including summarizing peers ideas, and responding appropriately to those ideas.
x Collaboration: all students have the ability to work productively with their peers
to accomplish a task. Each student participates equally and fully without needing
48
the teacher to facilitate the interactions of the group. Students find value in
working with their peers.
x Critical thinking: all students use learning strategies to work toward mastery of
the concept. Students embrace the process of struggling with a problem and
persist in their efforts to solve problems or complete tasks.
x Creative thinking: all students have the ability to think about a task from multiple
perspectives. Students are willing to think about problems in multiple ways with
little or no direction from the teacher.
All of the participants noted that their students were not proficient in their ability to
exhibit communication, collaboration, creative thinking, and critical thinking (4C) skills and
reported that the only one of the 4C skills that their students had an opportunity to implement in
their regular instruction is critical thinking. Participants were instructed that these standards (4C
skills) would be the standards for student proficiency included in this pilot.
The researchers made a conscientious effort to design professional learning that actively
involved the pilot participants. Guskey (2003) stated that effective professional learning requires
the collaboration of all stakeholders throughout the learning experience(s). For this reason, the
participants participated in the development of the professional learning and provided specific
feedback regarding topics they would like the researchers to address during the professional
learning experience. Participants also set goals for their professional learning during the pilot
study. In their feedback, all of the participants asked for practical application of concepts;
specifically, they requested advice on pacing, time management, and effective delivery of
content within a student-centered classroom. Each of these issues was addressed in the
49
professional learning experience. Scholarly literature on professional learning outcomes shows
that interactive professional learning increases the participants’ ability to see the value in the
learning and recreating the experience for other learners (Shulman & Hutchings, 2004; Wolf,
2004). The idea of recreating the experience of the learners as a means of delivering
professional learning to teachers aligned with the desire of the participants who requested
practical guidance for implementation. For these reasons, the researchers created an interactive
professional learning experience that mirrored the unit of instruction that the teachers would
deliver to students during the pilot study.
According to the scholarly literature, evaluating the effectiveness of professional learning
experiences requires a multi-step approach (Guskey, 2000; Kirkpatrick, 1998; Killion, 2008),
requiring the measurement and assessment of the following: (a) reaction, (b) learning, (c)
change, (d) application of learning, (e) student learning, and (d) calculating return on investment
(Guskey, 2000; Kirkpatrick, 1998; Phillips, 1997, as reported in Killion, 2008). Throughout the
duration of this pilot project, teachers were supported through their implementation of the pilot’s
unit of instruction, with changes in their understanding of how to deliver effective 4C rich
curriculum documented in their anecdotal accounts and in transcripts from focus group meetings.
However, true changes in teachers’ perceptions and skills can only be seen through direct
observation of implementation over longer periods of time (Guskey, 2000; Kirkpatrick, 1998;
Killion, 2008). Following these teachers and their use of other project based learning units (or
other types of instruction that promote 4C skills) would be an ideal next step to determine
whether prolonged professional learning and support for teachers would improve outcomes of
students who receive PBL instruction.
50
During professional learning, participants completed activities from the two-week unit of
instruction they would provide to their students as part of the pilot unit of instruction. Teachers
engaged in the activities as students and received instruction from the researchers. Following the
completion of these activities, teachers received a two week, standards-aligned unit called “The
Science of Sound” (Appendix A) to implement in their classrooms. This unit of study aligns
with the Buck Institute’s standards for PBL and meets specific 5th grade Florida Standards in
both science and music (Boss et al., 2013; FLDOE, 2016). The researchers also embedded
explicit instruction in non-cognitive factors, along with daily opportunities for students to reflect
on their progress in those areas; research indicates that improvement in student non-cognitive
factors improves when explicit instruction is coupled with regular opportunities for personal
reflection (Farrington et al., 2012).
As they implemented the unit, participating teachers met daily, in focus groups, to share
their progress on the unit, submitting a total of four anecdotal accounts through a medium of
their choice (electronic or paper-based). Anecdotal data was collected for two purposes: (a) to
gauge teachers’ perceptions of students’ 4C abilities throughout the unit of study and (b) to track
teachers’ perceptions of students’ mastery of standards. The researchers removed all identifiable
teacher and student information from logs and replaced it with pseudonyms. The researchers
secured the matching document, containing names and aliases, in an electronically and
physically secure, password-protected database.
51
Results
The researchers reviewed anecdotal feedback from each of the participating teachers and
sorted anecdotes based on characteristics of the writing. Three themes quickly emerged from
participants’ reflections: (a) frustration and difficulty, (b) signs of progress, and (c) signs of
success and ease of implementation. These three themes corresponded with Days 1-3, Days 4-7,
and Days 8-10. As expected, the three themes correlated with the number of days of
implementation the teacher had completed when the reflection was written, with the reflections
describing difficulties happening in the first three days (group 1) and the reflections citing
successes taking place in the last three days (group 3).
Focus Groups
The researchers conducted small informal focus groups every day during the pilot study.
These focus groups served two purposes: (a) to provide researchers with a check on the progress
of implementation and a venue for gathering feedback from teachers and (b) to provide teachers
with support for implementing the pilot’s curriculum. Each focus group session focused on two
questions:
x What progress have you seen in your students’ abilities to exhibit 4C skills?
x What support(s) do you still need to move forward with implementation?
The researchers kept notes on the types of questions and topics explored during the focus group
meetings and analyzed these notes to determine themes of conversation.
Focus group conversations were transcribed and coded using an emergent coding system
(Creswell, 2014). Codes were then collapsed into major themes. Conversational themes are the
main questions the participants had about how to better facilitate the instructional processes in
52
their classrooms and improve students’ non-cognitive skills or 4C skills. Researchers considered
a topic a theme if more than one teacher asked for specific assistance in improving instruction to
build the skill in question. Each teacher’s response to whether students were showing
improvements in their 4C skills were noted daily. During the first three days of instruction, none
of the teachers reported improvements. On Days 4 – 7, teachers began noting improvements in
one or more of the 4C skills. On Days 8 – 10 days, multiple teachers noted significant overall
improvement in one or more 4C skills. The term “no improvement” was used to indicate that
students still needed significant teacher support to exhibit the skill or students were not
exhibiting the skill at all. The term “some improvement” was used to indicate that students were
exhibiting the skill with intermittent teacher support, and “significant improvement” was used to
indicate that students were exhibiting the skill with little or no teacher support.
Focus Groups: Days 1–3
The initial days of the participants’ focus group focused on developing better social
skills, communication, and collaboration skills among students. In general, days 1-3 of the focus
group meetings generated themes associated with the teachers’ frustrations. While other topics
emerged during the focus group, the main areas of concern for participants were social skills,
communication, and collaboration. During the focus group meeting on day 2, Teacher A noted:
These kids are just struggling to work together. I feel like there are lots of individual
ideas flowing, but there isn’t much togetherness. They won’t listen to each other long
enough to realize they agree and can help one another out.
53
On day 3 of instruction, an interesting “breakthrough” moment occurred when Teacher C shared
his experience with a student in his last period class:
It was last period when I figured it out, so I’m anxious to get back into it tomorrow, but I
get it now- you have to model it for them. If you don’t, they won’t do it. You have to be
aware of whether or not you are following the norms the class made. If you don’t, they
won’t. It’s just that simple. You can redirect to the anchor charts all you want, but they
are looking for you to model and set the standard.
Teacher C also shared that he was completing a task at his desk when a student came to ask a
question. He was going to address the student’s question while still completing his task, but the
student said, “Do we need to follow the class norms when we talk to you or is that just for when
we do this project?” This story resonated with all of the participants and drove the longest focus
group session of the pilot. The result seemed to be a renewed determination to model non-
cognitive factors and 4C skills appropriately for students and maintain the speaking and listening
norms at all times. On every subsequent day of implementation, teachers began noting
improvements in collaboration and communication skills.
Focus Groups: Days 4–7
Focus group conversations in the middle portion of pilot instruction (days 4-7) focused
mainly on developing perseverance, critical thinking, and creative thinking in students. Days 4-6
focused heavily on developing perseverance in students. Teachers discussed a variety of
strategies by which students could be encouraged to continue to try to work through their
assigned challenges. One of the researchers shared research linking the support of academic
54
mindsets and context specific learning strategies with improvements in perseverance (Dweck et
al., 2011) and suggested the importance of supporting academic mindsets within the classroom.
During Day 7 of focus group, Teacher E noted the following:
You know, they can do it. I know they can, and they know they can. It’s just a matter of
them trying hard enough for long enough. I’m not sure if it’s a perseverance thing or if
it’s a learning strategy thing. Maybe they want to keep on trying but they aren’t sure
what to do next?
Teachers had more comments about specific learning strategies and how to support the use of
multiple approaches to problem solving in their classrooms.
Focus Groups: Days 8–10
The final days of instruction (Days 8-10) were characterized by more intense focus
group conversations relating to supporting students in the implementation of different learning
strategies in order to enhance their abilities to think critically and creatively. Teachers no longer
mentioned perseverance as an issue of concern.
The researchers noticed one interesting trend: teachers’ evolving topics of conversations
in the focus groups. In the early focus group meetings (Days 1-3), conversations primarily
focused on what the students could not accomplish. Conversations were characterized by
statement such as “they just don’t ” or “My kids can’t.” After Day 4 of the instructional unit,
statements emerged that highlighted teachers’ responsiveness to students needs,” “Maybe we
need to” or “what if we changed our approach.” By the end of instruction, topics discussed
during focus group meetings focused on how teachers might provide more support for students
55
by modeling academic mindsets and providing students with access to additional learning
strategies. This evolving nature of topics in the focus group indicated a significant shift from
conversations early in instruction where the onus was placed on students and their inabilities
(Table 4).
Anecdotal Reflections
All participants, including the teacher researcher, submitted a total of four reflections
during the pilot. The researchers provided participants with a set of five questions to drive their
reflections. These questions included the following:
1. How have students progressed in their ability to exhibit collaboration,
communication, creative thinking, and critical thinking (4C) skills?
2. Are there particular parts of the instruction that have been problematic for
students? For you? Explain.
3. Has your approach to instruction changed with this unit? How?
4. Do you find this type of instruction to be more or less effective than your
traditional format? Explain.
5. What else have you experienced or noticed about your students’ during this
unit of instruction? What have you noticed about your role as the teacher?
56
Table 4 Teacher Perceptions of Student 4C Skill Improvement During Unit Instruction
Day of Instruction
Teachers Perceptions of Overall 4C Improvement
Specific 4C Improvements Perceived by Teachers
1-3 No Improvement (n= 5) None
4 Some Improvement (n= 3) No Improvement (n= 2)
Teachers C, D, E: Collaboration and Communication
5 Some Improvement (n= 4) No Improvement (n= 1)
Teachers A, C, D, E: Collaboration and Communication
6 Some Improvement (n= 4) *1 teacher had a substitute
Teachers B, C, D, E: Collaboration and Communication Teachers C, E: Creativity
7 Some Improvement (n= 5) Teachers A, B, C, D, E: Collaboration and Communication Teachers C, E: Creativity Teachers A, C, D, E: Critical Thinking
8 Significant Improvement (n= 3) Some Improvement (n=2)
Teachers A, B, C, D, E: Collaboration and Communication Teachers C, E: Creativity Teachers A, C, D, E: Critical Thinking
9 Significant Improvement (n= 4) Some Improvement (n=1)
Teachers A, B, C, D, E: Collaboration and Communication Teachers C, E: Creativity Teachers A, C, D, E: Critical Thinking
10 Significant Improvement (n= 4) Some Improvement (n=1)
Teachers A, B, C, D, E: Collaboration and Communication Teachers C, E: Creativity Teachers A, B, C, D, E: Critical Thinking
57
Participating teachers submitted reflections on Days 2, 5, 7, and 10. Anecdotal
reflections followed the same pattern that was observed in focus group feedback, with reflections
becoming more positive over time.
The first set of reflections, submitted on Day 2 of instruction, focused heavily on the
students’ inabilities to communicate and collaborate effectively. For example, Teacher D noted
the following:
I feel like it is the first day of school all over again. It’s like they don’t know any of the
rules and I am having to start all over. I have no idea why it is such a problem. I do a lot
of “turn and talk to your partner” during my instruction. I thought this would not be
much different, but they are struggling to work together to complete the task.
Teacher A added to these sentiments, observing that “they [students] are excited, but having a
difficult time organizing themselves.” It should be noted that teachers offered this feedback
before the focus group discussion that emphasized how they, the teachers, were modeling their
expectations for their classes.
Reflections submitted on Day 5 mostly mirrored the focus group topics but with greater
emphasis on enhancing the students’ critical thinking and persevering abilities. For example,
Teacher A wrote:
They are comfortable sharing ideas and listening to others. So, now, I can walk around
and just steer their ideas and I’m not getting them to just answer me, I’m getting them to
demonstrate. It’s impressive to hear them question each other. Sometimes it’s better
than what I would ask. They are close to finding solutions, but they aren’t used to
working this hard for this long.
58
In addition, Teacher D noted the following observation:
They are working together. It’s good collaboration- you can see it happening and it’s
good. I am holding the expectations all day, too, which has helped them to know it’s not
just isolated to when we do science. I notice that since I have done that, things have
smoothed out with behaviors and their questions have been much more specific and
pointed. I am struggling to keep myself out of the process, though. It seems like it would
be easier for me to just show them how to adjust their pitch, but I know they may not
learn it if I jump in. Now that the procedures are under control, my biggest challenge is
keeping myself from giving away the punchline!”
Based on their comments, Teachers A and D readily embraced the role of teacher as facilitator, a
role associated with PBL standards. This shift in role—from teacher to facilitator—seemed to be
more problematic for some teachers than others but was critical to successful implementation.
Teacher B, still struggling with communication and collaboration at this point in the
instruction, reported:
The students are having a hard time finding success. I had to do a lot of redirecting to
help them focus on the learning outcome. The graphic organizer was helpful because that
is something we use a lot when I am teaching, so I have leaned a lot on that activity, and
we have worked on it a lot together, but they are still really having a hard time working
as a team.
This reflection by Teacher B represented the outlier in the group submissions for Day 5. The
researchers noted, in particular, the difference in the approach to implementing the instruction
taken by Teacher B. Instead of extending the standards for collaboration throughout the day, as
59
the other participants did (giving students more practice), Teacher B restricted the collaboration
time and modified the graphic organizer activity to be more of a direct instruction activity. This
shifted the control of the learning from student-controlled to teacher-controlled (Marzano, 2005).
The concept of locus of classroom control was not something that was addressed in the
professional learning provided to the participants but, in this pilot study, seemed to be a
significant variable for successful implementation.
Teachers’ anecdotal accounts from Day 7 were positive and focused on how the students’
and teachers’ perceptions of their respective roles had changed. Most reflections highlighted the
improvements in collaboration and communication and focused on the need to improve a growth
mindset. Teacher A said:
Totally different today. Students are working together better and are now sharing their
approaches. At first they just embraced that challenge but now they are completely
embracing the collaboration because they see it as a way for them to learn from each
other and make progress toward their goals. I’m out of the re-direction business because
I don’t have to do it anymore. They are doing it themselves. Now I can just ask the
questions when they get stuck. We are still fighting against the ‘right answer’ concept. It
is difficult for them to understand that I’m not just looking for one right answer.
Teacher C reported similar changes, making the following observation:
The students are working independently, for the most part. I am facilitating the
collaboration and communication in places where the students struggle, but it has
dwindled to become a rare occasion. The expectations are set and the students are
following them. I find it really neat to see how students are learning through ‘trial and
60
error’ and are beginning to see that ‘error’ is just as useful, if not more useful, than
success. This is still a point of struggle for them, though, as I am having to continuously
reinforce that part of learning is finding some positive outcome from failures. I am
especially enjoying seeing them work through conflicts by referring to the anchor chart of
norms that they developed. I see this as evidence that hey have taken ownership of the
collaborative learning process.
Teacher E reported an increase in students demonstrating creative approaches to problem
solving, along with collaboration and communication abilities. For example, Teacher E stated:
I am very impressed with the progress that we have made in the willingness of the
students to take risks. My kids are definitely more willing to try something new or listen
when a group member has an idea that seems impossible. I don’t know if it is the
reinforcement of the growth mindset, the groups working together or maybe all of that
combined, but there is definitely something that has changed the tone of the learning that
is happening here. It is exciting to see them excited to learn.
Teacher B’s reflection was again, the outlier in the group, noting some improvements in
collaboration and communication, but also expressing concern about the progress of students’
critical thinking abilities.
They are getting better with working together, but things become very ‘out of control’
quickly if I am not constantly monitoring. It is very difficult for me to teach this way
because it is overwhelming at points. I see the potential because I know they need to
learn things by being hands on, but I am much more comfortable with a gradual release
or guided instruction approach. I have stuck with it, mainly, because the kids are very
61
excited about doing the work. I’m afraid they would be disappointed if I took this project
from them. I am having them work steadily on their graphic organizers and using that as
the main way the group tries out new ideas for their instruments. They do not like to
think critically so it is difficult for them to problem solve, and I feel that the graphic
organizer is a good way to help them through the process in an organized way. We are
nearing the end of the unit, and I am not certain that all of my groups will have their
songs and instruments ready to demonstrate for the class.
Both researchers of this study noted the concern Teacher B expressed about the students
displaying “out of control” behavior. When asked by the researchers to elaborate what was
meant by “out of control” in this context, Teacher B responded:
By ‘out of control’ I meant that they were all doing different things and are at different
points and going about the project in a different way. Plus, they get loud and have a
tendency to jump from one thing to another.
What stood out in this teacher’s response was the problem of having students approach solutions
in different ways. Teacher B’s preference was to maintain more control in the classroom and
have students approach a problem in a uniform and systematic way; this type of learning is not
synonymous with PBL and reveals an important consideration for both teachers and
administrators. Specifically, in order for a PBL unit of instruction to be implemented
successfully, the teacher must be willing to allow multiple approaches to solving problems. By
limiting the means by which students can solve a problem, the teacher has inadvertently limited
the students’ ability to exhibit creative thinking skills.
62
Final anecdotal accounts were submitted on Day 10 and focused predominantly on
students’ performance on the summative assessment as well as their overall performance in
exhibiting 4C skills during the unit of study. Four of the five teachers praised the
implementation of this pilot unit of instruction and saw significant improvements in their
students’ overall abilities to exhibit communication, collaboration, creative thinking, and critical
thinking skills. Several participating teachers also noted dramatic improvement in their students’
content knowledge from the initial formative assessment to summative assessment. Teacher D
reported that the “class average went from a 43% to a 92%. It’s impressive. I had a feeling it
would be good, but I didn’t expect this.” Teacher E similarly observed the following: “one of
my struggling students earned a 30% on the initial formative and an 81% on the summative. I
can see how this type of learning could be a game changer for my kids who struggle.” Teacher B
remained hesitant about the process and made the following observation:
This took a lot of time, and yes, they can communicate and collaborate better, and they
enjoyed the work, but those are not standards that they will need to have mastered in
order to well on the FSA . . . I am pleased that they did well on the summative
assessment, but I am not convinced that they would not have done just as well if we had
done a lecture with notes and a graphic organizer.
Discussion
Based upon the results of this pilot study, the researchers concluded that there is much to
be considered when implementing curriculum that supports the development of collaboration,
communication, creative thinking, and critical thinking (4C) skills. While there must be
63
opportunities for students to practice these skills, the role of the teacher as a facilitator of
learning (as opposed to the keeper of knowledge) is critical.
The framework developed by the researchers has been significantly informed by this
study and includes a rubric that teachers and administrators can use to support students in
developing their 4C skills and a visual that shows how non-cognitive skills can be used as a
means of supporting students as they work to develop their 4C skills.
64
CHAPTER 3 PILOT ANALYSIS
Overview
This study’s complex problem of practice emerges from the current curriculum that
provides students few opportunities to develop and refine their skills in collaboration, creative
thinking, effective communication, and critical thinking (4Cs). This dissertation in practice
examined curriculum and strategies (connected to Florida Standards) that teachers can use to
engage students in developing these essential skills (4Cs). Application of these strategies will
prepare students to meet the expectations of a 21st century workforce.
The intention of this pilot study was to determine the impact of providing students with
the opportunity to engage in curriculum that will develop their 4C skills (critical thinking,
creative thinking, collaboration, and communication). This focus on the 4Cs is not
commonplace in the school district that was used for this study, nor is it commonplace in most
classrooms across the United States (IYF, 2012; OECD, 2009; Peterson et al., 1989; Saavedra,
2012). This gap in instruction has led to workforce concerns and an interest in developing “soft
skills” among the nation's youth (Binkley et al., 2010; Saavedra, 2012.).
This pilot study was conducted at a school in a small, rural district in northeast Florida;
this school has a total population of approximately 1000 students in grades pre-kindergarten
through sixth grade. Students who attend the school reside in the district’s beachside
community, which includes residences that range from government funded Section 8 housing
projects to homes located on the beach itself, valued at over one million dollars (“Flagler
Beach,” 2016). The student population is a fairly even split between males and females, the
65
majority of whom are White (75%), with the remaining 25% relatively evenly split among Black,
Asian, and multiracial. All teachers at Old Kings Elementary are classified as “Highly
Qualified” by the State of Florida, which means that they hold qualifications that meet the state
requirements for teaching the grade levels they have been assigned to teach (FLDOE,
2016). Teachers in fifth grade were recruited to participate in the pilot study because the content
standards of the unit of study aligned best with the fifth grade Florida Standards curriculum.
The pilot study answered two research questions:
x Do students exhibit collaboration, creative thinking, effective communication, and critical
thinking skills (4Cs) when the curriculum provides opportunity to engage the students in
work where they can demonstrate the 4Cs?
x How can explicitly teaching students non-cognitive factors (academic mindset, academic
behaviors, perseverance, social skills, learning strategies) influence their ability to
effectively demonstrate 4C skills?
Outcomes
This pilot study explored teachers’ perceptions of students’ abilities to exhibit effective
communication, collaboration, creativity, and critical thinking (4C) skills and whether these
skills were increased with the implementation of a unit of instruction that was rich in 4C
opportunities and supported with explicit instruction in non-cognitive factors. The pilot also
provided evidence that teachers perceived instruction and modeling non-cognitive factors to be
integral to the development of strong communication, collaboration, creative thinking, and
critical thinking (4C) skills. The data collected from the pilot informed the framework from the
66
positionality of the teacher practitioner and administrative practitioner. This data clarified the
following outcomes:
x The need for a specific tool to guide administrators and practitioners in the
implementation of curriculum rich with opportunities for students to develop their
communication, collaboration, creative thinking, and critical thinking (4C) skills and
x Teachers and administrators understanding the link between development of academic
mindset, learning strategies, academic behaviors, social skills, and academic
perseverance (non cognitive factors) and communication, collaboration, creative
thinking, and critical thinking (4C) skills.
During the first three days of instruction, none of the teachers reported
improvements. From Days 4–7, teachers began noting improvements in one or more of the 4C
skills. During Days 8–10 multiple teachers noted significant overall improvement in one or
more 4C skills.
Researcher Positionality
Together, the teacher and administrator practitioners approached this dissertation in
practice from what Herr and Anderson (2015) called organizational “insiders,” collaborating to
gather information to inform the teaching practices within the organization. In a more traditional
dissertation, conducting research in one’s own setting may be frowned upon because of the
natural biases the researchers bring to the work (Glesne & Peshkin, 1992). However, as insiders
in the organization, both practitioners were able to approach the problem within the
organizational context and to ensure that conclusions and solutions generated were appropriate,
67
ethical, and pragmatic for the organization. The teacher-researcher was a participant in the pilot,
noting the struggles and successes that came with implementation of the collaboration,
communication, creative thinking, and critical thinking (4C) focused unit of instruction. The
administrator-researcher did not participate directly in the pilot but analyzed the participants’
reflections and the detailed notes from the focus groups. Together, the researchers collaborated
to build the framework by which teachers can implement curriculum that will develop students’
collaboration, communication, creative thinking, and critical thinking (4C) skills. The
researchers monitored bias by maintaining active reflective practices and considering carefully
epistemology and methodology (Herr & Anderson, 2015). Similarly, the researchers addressed
the threat of biases by using the guidelines for validity criteria proposed by Herr and Anderson
(2015), as well as triangulation of data, member validation (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), and regular
validation meetings with the advisor for this study as well as other doctoral candidates in the
same cohort (Bone, 1996).
Teacher Positionality
From the perspective of the teacher researcher, the data from the pilot were examined
from two vantage points: (a) student progression in their ability to exhibit collaboration,
communication, creative thinking, and critical thinking (4C) skills, and (b) teacher supports for
implementation of the collaboration, communication, creative thinking, and critical thinking (4C)
rich curriculum.
68
Student Progression
From the teachers’ perspectives, student progression proved somewhat difficult to track
because of the absence of established benchmarks of progress in each of the 4Cs. A rubric is one
product of this dissertation in practice that will be useful for both teachers and students as a tool
to measure progress of students’ proficiency in communication, collaboration, creative thinking,
and critical thinking (4Cs). In the absence of a specific benchmark measure, teachers relied on
their own observations, noting specific aspects of communication, collaboration, creative
thinking and critical thinking (4Cs) that improved (as per the standard presented in the
professional learning experience) over the course of the unit of instruction.
Teachers reported progress that was progressive and began with improvements in
communication and collaboration during the initial portion of the unit. However, the structure of
the unit heavily emphasized communication and collaboration at the outset of instruction.
Significantly, students’ progress in developing communication, collaboration, creative thinking,
and critical thinking (4C) skills, in this pilot, was dependent on the frequency with which the
students engaged in the particular 4C skill. Teachers perceived that students’ responses to the
demands of project-based learning were varied but tended to improve with time.
Content
Students who participated in the study found the content of the instructional unit
challenging, but the challenge was overshadowed by student engagement and enthusiasm, which
carried them through the unit successfully and was an added incentive for participants. All
teacher-participants reported increased student enthusiasm, including the teacher who struggled
69
with implementation, who noted that she continued through the unit because her students would
be disappointed if she did not. Teacher observations served as the measure of student
engagement and enthusiasm as well as daily student reflections produced over the course of the
instructional unit. Also notable: teachers reported little to no major student behavioral issues
during the two-week unit of instruction, a contrast to the typical one major behavioral issue per
teacher per week.
Outcomes related to content were significant, with all students demonstrating growth
between the formative to summative assessments. Teachers noted that nearly all students
showed significant growth in their understanding of the content as measured by their summative
assessment scores. In particular, teachers recognized students’ abilities to elaborate on answers
they provided when asked content related questions. For example, when asked to explain the
concept of pitch, Teacher D reported:
I was impressed with the answers I was getting. I asked about pitch and I not only got an
explanation about how pitch is the same as frequency, but the showed me their string
instrument and showed me how to change the pitch by adjusting the strings. Normally,
they don’t give me that level of detail, or if they do, I have to dig for it!
Teacher Support for Implementation
As an insider conducting research, my positionality allowed me to simultaneously track
the progress of the participating teachers in the learning process as well as that of the students
who were receiving the new form of instruction. Ironically, the progress of the focus group
(teachers) in exhibiting communication, collaboration, critical thinking, and creative thinking
70
(4C skills) mirrored somewhat the progress of the students’ 4C skills. In the first few days of the
focus group, participants struggled with how to structure the learning environment as well as
how to communicate why implementation was difficult. Once the focus group learned to
communicate more effectively, the group began to collaborate more naturally. As the group
became more collaborative, the researchers were able to examine problems critically and
produce creative solutions to support students’ progress in developing their 4Cs skills. This
process toward true collaboration and problem solving was typical of small group productivity
and mirrored the process of becoming a productive team reported by Tuckman (1965) and
Bonebright (2010).
Focus Groups
The focus groups, while originally designed to answer participants’ questions and collect
data from participants, became an integral support system for participants throughout the process
of implementing the instructional unit. While professional learning was provided to participants
at the beginning of the unit, daily communication among participants during implementation
emerged as the most beneficial aspect of professional learning because it was an immediate,
embedded opportunity to compare thinking with other participants. Participants perceived the
support of this focus group as integral to implementation of the instructional unity. One
participant observed, “The focus group process is what kept me moving my kids forward. Just
knowing that I had colleagues that I could work with to solve challenges was comforting. I feel
like my teaching improved because of this experience.”
71
Modeling
In this pilot study, students demonstrated the most progress when teachers modeled 4C
skills for their students and acted as participants in the learning process. This shift in the
teachers’ role was significant for many of the participants. Both researchers agreed that the
portion of the professional learning that focused on the role of the teacher during instruction
should have been much more explicit and detailed. In this pilot, those teachers who embraced
the change from teacher-centered instruction to student-centered instruction were the teachers
who reported the most perceived improvement in students’ collaboration, communication,
creative thinking, and critical thinking (4C) skills. Teacher participants’ reflections were
explicit in describing the shift in their positionality from teaching information to students to
facilitating the learning of the students. This shift, in many respects, resonated with Anderson
and Herr’s (2015) description of the positionality of individuals in the process of completing a
dissertation in practice. The typical teacher positionality is that of an outsider who performs
action research “on” a particular topic, subject, or organization. However, teachers who
embraced the idea of themselves as insiders, who were actively participating (with students) in
the process of learning, perceived improvements in student progress.
Administrative Positionality
From the administrative perspective, the data from the pilot were viewed through three
distinct lenses: (a) instructional methods and teacher practice, (b) development of students’
collaboration, communication, creative thinking, and critical thinking (4C) skills, and (c)
development of students’ content knowledge.
72
Instructional Methods and Teacher Practice
One of the most notable results of the pilot was the evolution of teachers’ perceptions of
their students’ progress. Initially (days 1-3), teachers’ conversations focused primarily on what
the students could not accomplish. Teachers’ reflections included phrases such as “they just
don’t . . .” or “my kids can’t . . .” and were heavily focused on the students’ inability to
communicate and collaborate effectively. Day three was a turning point for all of the
participants when Teacher C shared his insight into the importance of modeling the behaviors in
the classroom and becoming an actual participant in the learning process. Teacher C observed:
I get it now—you have to model it for them. If you don’t, they won’t do it. You have to
be aware of whether or not you are following the norms the class made. If you don’t,
they won’t. It’s just that simple. You can redirect to the anchor charts all you want, but
they are looking for you to model and set the standard.
These words carried significant weight with all of the participants and seemed to precipitate a
shift in the behavior of most of the participants. This shift in behavior required teachers to
embrace the role of facilitator as indicated by project based learning standards (Albanese &
Mitchell, 1993; Barron & Darling-Hammond, 2008; Boss et al., 2013). Making this shift, more
difficult for some teachers than others, was critical to successful implementation of the
instructional unit. Research supports the concept of student-centered classrooms as a means of
improving student engagement and, ultimately, conceptual understanding; research also
recognizes the difficulty that many teachers experience when initially implementing this type of
instruction (Cubukcu, 2012; Tillapaugh & Haber-Curran, 2013).
Once they began thinking of themselves as facilitators and active participants in the
73
learning process, teachers’ reflections began to focus more on what the teachers needed to do to
support students through the process. Evidence emerged in teachers’ reflections and focus group
conversations with statements such as “maybe we need to . . .” and “what if we changed our
approach . . .” Instead of focusing on behaviors, teachers began to concern themselves more
with how to enhance the students’ critical thinking and persevering abilities. On Day 7, one
participant noted the link between perseverance and learning strategies, stating, “I’m not sure if
it’s a perseverance thing or if it’s a learning strategy thing. Maybe they want to keep on trying
but they aren’t sure what to do next.” The researchers saw this statement as another turning
point in participants’ transformation because teachers could see their role in the development of
students’ understanding and perseverance. These statements also demonstrated that teachers
were looking for ways to support students in the development of 4C skills instead of simply
noting the deficiencies that students have in these areas. This thinking was further observed in
conversation and written reflections teachers submitted during the instructional unit.
Communications from the majority of teacher-participants focused on how the students’ and
teachers’ perceptions of their respective roles had changed and noted a need for improving
growth mindsets by modeling for students.
One participant struggled with the transition to “teacher as facilitator” and described
portions of the instruction as “out of control.” When asked to elaborate on what “out of control”
meant in this context, the teacher shared the following response:
By ‘out of control’, I meant that they were all doing different things and are at different
points and going about the project in a different way. Plus, they get loud and have a
tendency to jump from one thing to another.
74
This teacher highlighted the problem of students’ generating solutions in different ways,
ultimately preferring to maintain a high level of control in the classroom and have students
approach a problem in a uniform and systematic way. By structuring students’ approach to
problem solving, the teacher has also inadvertently limited the students’ ability to exhibit
creative thinking skills. This type of learning is not synonymous with project-based learning
(Barron & Darling-Hammond, 2008; Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2007). In order to
implement a project based-learning unit of study, the teacher must allow multiple approaches to
solving problems; teachers must possess, then, a firm understanding of the difference between
teacher-centered and student-centered classrooms. Teachers whose belief systems do not align
with student-centered teaching may struggle to implement curriculum rich with collaboration,
communication, creative thinking, and critical thinking (4C) opportunities and will need
significant support. Administrators who are interested in implementing a 4C rich curriculum
should be prepared to provide significant support to teachers who struggle to consistently
maintain a student-centered classroom environment.
By the end of this pilot study, focus group conversations and the majority of the
participants’ reflections focused on the ways teachers could provide more support for students by
modeling academic mindsets and providing students with access to more learning
strategies. These conversations demonstrated a significant shift from conversations early in
instruction where the onus was placed on students and their inabilities.
Development of Students’ 4C Skills
While the researchers recognize that all data collected from this pilot were funneled
75
through the filter of the teacher-participants, evidence suggests that this pilot did improve
students’ abilities to exhibit collaboration, communication, critical thinking, and creative
thinking (4C) skills. These outcomes correspond with outcomes in the literature, suggesting that
project-based learning methods typically do facilitate deep content learning and deep problem
solving, development of 4C skills, improve levels of engagement, and enhance long-term
academic outcomes (Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2002; Barron &
Darling-Hammond, 2008; Fredricks et al., 2004; Newmann & Associates, 1996; Partnership for
21st Century Skills, 2007; Ravitz, 2009; Silva, 2008).
Both teacher reflections and focus group conversations indicated that students’ skills
improved over the duration of the unit. Moreover, all participants noted the same sequence of
events associated with student improvement. Teachers first noted improvement in their students’
communication and collaboration skills. Focus group conversations and written reflections from
the teachers coupled these two skills, communication and collaboration, almost exclusively. Only
one teacher mentioned the development of communication skills in isolation of collaboration
skills. Interestingly, teacher-participants noted that their students’ focus on “speaking and
listening skills” was essential in order for the group to collaborate effectively.
Critical and creative thinking were discussed both independently and in conjunction with
each other. Participants initially indicated their concerns about developing their students’ 4C
skills (implying that students either had these skills or did not have these skills) but, in later
conversations, participants began to discuss ways to support students’ development of these
same skills. In addition, participants indicated that their students’ reflections showed the same
pattern. Initially, students wrote, “I’m not creative” or “I am not a creative person” but, later in
76
the unit of instruction, the same students reported that they were “proud of my creation and glad
I had time to change it and make it better and better”.
While the development of students’ communication, collaboration, critical thinking, and
creative thinking (4C) skills is evident in this data, there is an important academic mindset at
work. While initially both researchers found an academic mindset to be an important non-
cognitive factor for students to develop 4C skills, data from this pilot revealed the importance of
the teacher’s academic mindset and ability to model this attribute for students at all times. This
relationship aligns with recent research, which indicates that academic mindsets cannot be taught
in the absence of teachers whose belief systems align with a growth mindset (Dweck, 2006).
Development of Students’ Content Knowledge
Proficiency in the standards associated with this unit of instruction was examined from an
administrative perspective. In the school where the pilot was conducted, scoring 70% or above
on the final unit assessment qualified as proficiency. The final unit assessment is typically a
common assessment that is teacher-created and aligns with the Florida Standards for the
particular subject matter being assessed. The majority of the students participating in the study
not only showed proficiency in the standards, but showed mastery of these standards (scoring
90% or above) as measured by the Florida Standards aligned common summative assessment.
This outcome aligns with evidence found in some project-based learning literature, which has
shown that students who learn by these methods outscore their peers who receive traditional
instruction (Barron & Darling-Hammond, 2008; Kivunja, 2014; Trilling & Fadel, 2009).
Teachers who participated in the pilot noted the significant improvement in the number of
77
students scoring in the proficient and mastery ranges for this unit of instruction as compared to
scores from previous years. One teacher noted that, for the first time, more than five or six
students scored in the mastery range on a common summative assessment. Participants were
particularly intrigued with these results and expressed interest in determining whether this
finding would align with findings in other project-based learning studies (Ravitz, 2009; Strobel
& van Barnevled, 2009; Vernon & Blake, 1993; Walker & Leary, 2009).
Framework
By collaboratively analyzing the outcomes of the pilot study from both the teacher and
administrative perspectives, the researchers developed a framework to address the problem of
practice: the lack of consistent opportunities for students to learn through curriculum that is rich
in opportunities to develop collaboration, communication, critical thinking, and creative thinking
(4C) skills.
Intended Audience
It is the intention of the researchers to develop a framework and accompanying rubric to
be used by educators who are interested in implementing a collaboration, communication,
creative thinking, and critical thinking (4C) rich curriculum. Outcomes from this pilot study
show that educators who have demonstrated belief systems aligned with teacher-centered
classrooms will need more support during implementation of the framework than teachers whose
belief systems are more student-centered.
78
Intended Use
The framework developed as a result of this pilot study was developed to inform
teachers, administrators, and students thinking about the development of 4C skills by showing
the link between the development of non-cognitive factors and communication, collaboration,
critical thinking and creative thinking (4C) skills. The researchers developed the visual to show
how academic mindset, learning strategies, academic behaviors, social skills, and academic
perseverance (non-cognitive factors) function as prerequisite skills for collaboration,
communication, creative thinking, and critical thinking (4C) skills. This link between the
development of non-cognitive factors and 4C skills was one that teachers discovered through the
implementation of the pilot study and would have liked to have had support from the outset of
implementation. The framework can be used by teacher and administrators as a diagnostic tool
for assisting students in the development of specific 4C skills or as a means of determining
whether a classroom is providing a firm foundation for 21st century skills by providing a
collaboration, communication, creative thinking, and critical thinking (4C) rich curriculum.
The descriptions included in the rubric will also provide recommendations based on the
work of Farrington et al. (2012) for moving from one level of implementation to the next. The
recommendations are intended for use in conjunction with the rubric as a means of providing
concrete understanding for how to explicitly teach, embed reflective practices to further develop
skills, and model academic mindset, learning strategies, academic behaviors, social skills, and
academic perseverance (non cognitive skills) for students. This tool will provide a means of
scaffolding the development of 4C skills.
79
The use of this framework and rubric offers a means by which educators can directly
address the lack of 21st century skill development that is common in classrooms across the
United States (IYF, 2012; OECD, 2009; Peterson et al., 1989; Saavedra, 2012) and respond to
the demands for a more prepared 21st century workforce (Binkley et al., 2010; Saavedra,
2012). Employing this framework serves the purpose of preparing students to make educated
decisions as citizens and to overcome the challenges that await them when they enter the
workforce or a post-secondary institution (Baron & Markman, 2000; Matthews, 2006; Parker,
2003; Wilson & Berenthal, 2005).
80
CHAPTER 4 INCREASING STUDENTS’ COMMUNICATION, COLLABORATION, CRITICAL
THINKING, AND CREATIVE THINKING SKILLS
Overview
This dissertation's complex problem of practice emerges because current curriculum
provides students few opportunities to develop and refine their skills in collaboration, creative
thinking, effective communication, and critical thinking (the 4Cs). This study examined
curriculum and strategies (connected to Florida Standards) that teachers can use to engage
students in developing these essential skills. This will prepare students to engage in and meet the
expectations of a 21st century workforce.
The pilot study was conducted to determine the impact of providing students with the
opportunity to engage in curriculum that will develop their 4C skills (critical thinking, creative
thinking, collaboration, and communication). This type of instruction is not commonplace in the
school district that was used for this study, nor is it commonplace in most classrooms across the
United States (IYF, 2012; OECD, 2009; Peterson et al., 1989; Saavedra, 2012). The result of the
lack of instruction has led to workforce concerns and an interest in developing “soft skills”
among the nation's youth (Binkley et al., 2010; Saavedra, 2012.). The pilot study was conducted
to answer two research questions:
1. Do students exhibit 4Cs when the curriculum provides opportunity to engage the students
in work where they can demonstrate them?
2. How can explicitly teaching students non-cognitive factors (academic mindset, academic
behaviors, perseverance, social skills, learning strategies) influence their ability to
effectively demonstrate 4C skills?
81
Outcomes
The pilot study was significant because it revealed teacher perceptions that students
abilities to exhibit 4C skills were increased with the implementation of a unit of instruction that
was rich in 4C opportunities and supported with explicit instruction in non-cognitive factors.
The pilot also provided evidence that teachers perceived both instruction and modeling of non-
cognitive factors to be integral to the development of strong (4C) skills. The data collected from
the pilot informed the framework from the positionality of the teacher practitioner and
administrative practitioner. This data informed the researchers about the need for a specific tool
to guide administrators and practitioners in the implementation of curriculum rich with
opportunities for students to develop (4C) skills. Moreover, this framework will provide a means
by which teachers and administrators can understand the link between development of academic
mindset, learning strategies, academic behaviors, social skills, and academic perseverance (non-
cognitive factors) and (4C) skills.
Framework
By collaboratively analyzing the outcomes of the pilot from both the teacher and
administrative perspectives, the researchers developed a framework to address the problem of
practice: the lack of consistent opportunity for students to learn through curriculum that is rich
in opportunities to develop collaboration, communication, critical thinking, and creative thinking
(4C) skills.
82
Intended Audience
While it is the intention of the researchers for this framework and accompanying rubric to
be used by any educators who are interested in implementing a (4C) rich curriculum, it should be
noted that the outcomes from this pilot have shown that educators who have demonstrated belief
systems aligned with teacher-centered classrooms will need more support for implementation
than teachers whose belief systems are more student-centered.
Intended Use
The framework developed as a result of this pilot study is intended to inform teachers,
administrators, and students by showing the link between the development of non-cognitive
factors and (4C) skills. The visual was developed by the researchers to show how academic
mindset, learning strategies; academic behaviors, social skills, and academic perseverance (non-
cognitive factors) function as prerequisite skills for (4C) skills. This link was one that teachers
discovered through the implementation of the pilot study, and would have liked to have had
support for from the outset of implementation. Teachers and administrators can use the
framework as a diagnostic tool for assisting students in the development of specific 4C skills or
as a means of determining whether a classroom is providing a firm foundation for 21st century
skills by providing a (4C) rich curriculum.
The descriptions included in the rubric will also provide recommendations based on the
work of Farrington et al. (2012) for moving from one level of implementation to the next. The
recommendations are intended for use in conjunction with the rubric as a means of providing
concrete understanding for how to explicitly teach embed reflective practices to further develop
83
skills and model academic mindset, learning strategies, academic behaviors, social skills, and
academic perseverance (non cognitive skills) for students. This tool will provide a means of
scaffolding the development of (4C) skills.
The use of this framework and rubric will begin to offer a means by which educators can
directly address the lack of 21st century skill development that is common in classrooms across
the United States (IYF, 2012; OECD, 2009; Peterson et al., 1989; Saavedra, 2012) and begin to
answer the demands expressed for a more prepared 21st century workforce (Binkley et al., 2010;
Saavedra, 2012). Employing this framework will serve the purpose of preparing students to
make educated decisions as citizens, and to overcome the challenges that await them when they
arrive in the workforce or in a post-secondary institution (Baron & Markman, 2000; Matthews;
2006; Parker, 2003; Wilson & Berenthal, 2005).
Visual for Developing Students Communication, Collaboration, Critical Thinking, and Creative
Thinking Skills
In this study, the researchers were able to synthesize specific relationships among non-
cognitive factors and 4C skills. Specifically, this study reflected the importance of the
development of students’ proficiency in applying learning strategies, academic behaviors, and
academic mindsets in order to support the development of their 4C skills. These particular non-
cognitive factors were equally applicable to the development of all of the 4Cs and were integral
to students’ progress through the unit of instruction. In contrast, the non-cognitive factor of
social skills seemed to be of extreme importance in supporting the development of students’
communication and collaboration skills, while academic perseverance was critical in supporting
84
the development of students’ critical thinking and creativity skills. Figure 3 shows the expanded
form of the visual, which includes specific evidence that builds non-cognitive factors, which
support the development of 4C skills. This visual can be viewed more succinctly (Figure 4)
when accompanied by the rubric that has been developed to assist with the progression of 4C
implementation.
Figure 3. Expanded visual for developing students’ communication, collaboration, critical thinking, and creative thinking skills.
85
Figure 4. Condensed visual for developing students’ communication, collaboration, critical thinking, and creative thinking skills.
This visual, coupled with the rubric is intended to assist educators who have a desire to
implement or to further refine implementation of a curriculum that is rich with opportunities for
students to develop their (4C) skills (Table 5). Below each of the 4C sections of the rubric are
discussed with specific recommendations for how to progress across the continuum.
Recommendations are based on literature, as well as the findings of this pilot, which has linked
instruction in non-cognitive factors with the development of (4C) skills.
Academic behaviors are characteristics exemplified by students who are typically labeled
as “conscientious” and “hardworking” by stakeholders in students’ educational experiences. The
behaviors include regular class attendance, participating in class activities, studying, and
86
attending to homework in a timely manner. Research has shown that increasing the frequency of
these behaviors in a particular class is not only possible (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Skinner, 1953;
Staats, 1963), but also typically improves the student’s academic outcomes (Farrington et al.,
2014).
Carol Dweck, in her 2006 bestselling book, Mindset the New Psychology of Success,
popularized the idea of the malleability of academic mindsets. Mindsets can be fixed or open to
growth. While there are a multitude of academic mindsets, there are four that have been shown
to contribute positively to student academic outcomes (Farrington et al., 2014). They are:
belonging to an academic community (Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Wentzel &
Asher, 1995; Wentzel & Caldwell, 1997), the growth of ability with effort (Cury et al., 2006;
Dweck & Leggett, 1998), a belief in the likelihood of success (Bandura, 1986; Bandura &
Schunk, 1981; Bouffard-Bouchard, 1990; Pajares, 1996) and the belief in the work as valuable to
the student immediately or in the future (Atkinson, 1957; Eccles et al., 1983; Wigfield, 1994;
Wigfield & Eccles, 1992).
87
Table 5 Rubric for Refining Students’ Communication, Collaboration, Critical Thinking, and Creative Thinking Skills
4Cs Basic Developing Proficient Refined Communication Students have limited
opportunities to share ideas and only a small number of students speak when prompted. Only some students are engaged in the conversation and able to summarize the thoughts of their peers.
Students have weekly opportunities to share ideas. Most students embrace the opportunity to communicate, though not all will participate in conversation with peers.
Students have daily opportunities to share ideas. All students embrace the opportunity to communicate with others, and most show excellent skills in summarizing the ideas of others and responding to those ideas appropriately.
All students are not only able to effectively communicate their ideas in an articulate way, but can also exhibit exemplary listening skills, including summarizing peers ideas and responding to those ideas. The teacher ensures that curriculum requires students to communicate with each other, as well as other authentic audiences who may have an interest in the work at hand. Students are involved in identifying audiences.
Collaboration There are limited opportunities for students to work together to complete a task. Student collaboration is only evident among some students. All students do not participate equally in the collaborative process and most learning tasks are designed so that collaboration is not necessary.
Students are provided with regular opportunities to collaborate. Tasks are designed to require all students to collaborate in order to be successful. Many students engage in the collaborative effort, but not all students are fully invested or see the value of collaborating with peers.
Collaboration is an expected part of the classroom experience. Students embrace the opportunity to collaborate with peers with the teacher acting as the facilitator.
All students have the ability to work productively with their peers to accomplish a task. Each student participates equally, and fully without needing the teacher to facilitate the interactions of the group. Students find value in working with their peers. The teacher designs curriculum that requires students to work together to complete tasks. The learning environment promotes a sense of community and collaboration.
88
4Cs Basic Developing Proficient Refined Critical Thinking There are limited opportunities
for students to struggle with a concept or idea. Much of the students’ work is designed at a cognitive level that does not challenge students. When challenging work is presented to students, some students embrace the challenge, while others avoid the task.
Students are provided with regular opportunities to think critically. The teacher effectively scaffolds the process by providing students with direct instruction in learning strategies that will assist them to complete the work. The work is designed to be student centered, but the teacher must provide significant interventions in order for the students to be successful.
Reasonably challenging curriculum is an expectation in the classroom. Students have command of a sufficient repertoire of learning strategies, which assist them in making progress with the work and persevering. The teacher facilitates student progress and encourages curiosity among students.
All students use learning strategies to work toward mastery of the work. Students embrace the process of struggling with a problem and persist in their efforts to solve problems or complete tasks. The teacher designs curriculum that moves students outside of their comfort zone of thinking. Students are continually challenged to engage in work that is authentic. The teacher requires students to solve problems. Curiosity is valued and encouraged.
Creative Thinking Students have limited opportunities to make their own choices about how to demonstrate mastery of the standards. When students are presented with these opportunities, only some students are willing to think about the problem in a different way.
Students have regular opportunities to use a variety of methods to show their mastery of standards. Some students embrace the opportunity to think about problems in different ways, while other students resist the opportunity and crave more structured, teacher directed tasks. The teacher assists students who struggle by providing them with scaffolded activities to nurture their creativity.
Students have daily opportunities to solve problems in a variety of ways. Students are also given opportunities to show their mastery of standards in ways they choose. All students embrace these opportunities and are willing to take intellectual risks in order to explore diverse ways to complete a task.
All students have the ability to think about a task from multiple perspectives. Students are willing to think about problems in multiple ways or elaborate on solutions with little or no direction from the teacher. The teacher designs work that requires students to think about problems from multiple perspectives.
89
In order for non-cognitive factors to affect academic performance outcomes, it is
necessary to engage cognitive processes (Farrington et al., 2014). This is done through the
implementation of learning strategies such as metacognition, goal setting, and time management
(Flavell, 1979; Hacker et al., 2009, Crede & Kuncel, 2008; Zimmerman, 2001; Zimmerman &
Schunk, 1989). Using these strategies allows students to track their progress toward a goal or
academic outcome and provides the motivation necessary to feed academic perseverance and
maintain a growth mindset (Paris et al., 1983; Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990; Pokay & Blumenfeld,
1990). In the pilot study, students were expected to use learning strategies to solve a complex
problem and were required to write about their progress toward the goal of creating musical
instruments that could produce the necessary sounds to create a famous song. Pilot participants
noted that students used learning strategies as a means of developing communication skills
(written communication skills, specifically), collaboration (expressing ideas more fully and
thoughtfully), critical thinking (employing learning strategies to solve complex problems), and
creative thinking (choosing different strategies for solving problems).
In this pilot, these three non-cognitive factors: academic behaviors, academic mindset,
and learning strategies were integral prerequisites for developing all four of the 21st century
skills: collaboration, communication, critical thinking, creative thinking. The remaining two
non-cognitive factors: social skills and academic perseverance were more intimately connected
with specific 4C skills. Social skills were instrumental in developing communication and
collaboration, while academic perseverance was related to the development of critical thinking
and creative thinking skills.
90
The Role of Social Skills in the Development of Communication and Collaboration
The term social skill refers to the ability of individuals to work collaboratively in a way
that is viewed by peers as socially acceptable (Gresham & Elliott, 1990). Social skills must be
considered as a variable in the equation of non-cognitive factors that influence student academic
performance because they play a pivotal role in the effectiveness of the other non-cognitive
factors (Teo et al., 1996). Although research on social skills has been completed in the presence
of other non-cognitive factors, results suggesting that the development of strong social skills
support students’ ability to learn collaboratively, which increases their overall ability to learn and
retain information (Bandura, 1997; Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning,
2003; Greenberg et al., 2003; Vygotsy, 1978).
Communication
Refining students’ communication abilities requires attention to two critical skills: the
ability to effectively communicate one’s own perspective and the ability to actively listen and
respond appropriately to another individual’s perspective (Farrington et al., 2014; Partnership for
21st Century, 2007). These skills are essential in the 21st century workforce because they are the
primary means by which humans can set themselves apart from automated production (Achieve,
2015; Baron & Markman, 2000). In addition to simply being able to effectively communicate,
there is also evidence in the literature dating back to both Vigotsky (1978) and Bandura (1997)
that peer communication, facilitated as social constructivism, is an effective means of promoting
understanding of content (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Shellnger, 2011; Greenberg
et al., 2003).
91
In order to begin to scaffold students in their communication abilities, teachers must first
create a classroom climate where communication is both necessary and valued. This can be
accomplished by providing curriculum that is completed in small groups and requires all students
to participate. As was evident in the pilot study, while some students readily embrace the
opportunity to communicate, others feel uneasy and need practice in specific non-cognitive skills
in order to scaffold their knowledge.
A teacher interested in developing his or her students’ abilities in communication should
initially establish the need for effective communication. This can be accomplished through a
game or other activity that illustrates the importance of effective speaking and listening
skills. Several social skills promote the development of communication. These include waiting
until someone finishes a thought before speaking, asking questions when you are uncertain of
meaning, and looking individuals in the eye when engaging in conversation (Malecki & Elliott,
2002). Providing direct instruction in these skills, followed by learning strategies that refine
communication abilities will give students the tools they need to communicate effectively. In
addition to instruction, students should be provided with time to practice conversing and
encouraged to reflect on the effects the social skills and specific learning strategies have had on
the conversation. In order for the climate of the classroom to positively influence students’
progress, the teacher must also employ both social skills and learning strategies provided to
students (Phillippo & Stone, 2013). This was underscored in the pilot when the student pointed
out the teacher’s “multitasking” and asked for his full attention.
Providing students with the social skills and learning strategies that facilitate effective
communication allows the students to move toward mastery of academic behaviors that support
92
communication (Goodwin, 1999; Farrington et al., 2014). Social skills often act as prerequisites
for academic behaviors, which improve academic outcomes (Collaborative for Academic, Social,
and Emotional Learning, 2003; Greenberg et al., 2003; Malecki & Elliott, 2002; Wentzel, 1991,
1993). Participation and cognitive engagement are the two academic behaviors that drive a
student’s ability to improve his or her communication skills (Farrington et al., 2014). In order to
enhance these academic behaviors beyond the initial surge created by the proficiency in social
skills and learning strategies, teachers should be explicit in their instruction, monitor students
understanding of learning strategies, and provide timely and specific actionable feedback to
students (Lee & Shute, 2010; Marzano, Pickering, & Pollack, 2001).
Collaboration
Collaboration is a critical 21st century workforce skill because it is the means by which
many successful companies plan to accomplish high volumes of work (Pink, 2011; Saavedra &
Opfer, 2012; Trilling & Fadel, 2009). The ability to create a product that is inclusive of multiple
perspectives is paramount in the future, and as a result, workforce has cited the ability to
collaborate with others as a skill that is ideal in new hires (Pink, 2011; Trilling & Fadel, 2009).
The development of effective social skills is critical to the development of collaborative
behaviors (Goodwin, 1999; Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 1993). Literature indicates that social
skills are best developed by systematically teaching appropriate skills and allowing students
opportunities to deliberately practice these skills until they become second nature (Durlack et al.,
2011; Ladd & Mize, 1983; Weissberg, Caplan, & Sivo, 1989). In the pilot, this was
accomplished when students worked with the teacher to develop norms for collaborative
93
work. Students also tracked their progress in maintaining norms through their daily
reflections. One of the more important elements of implementation, in this pilot, was the
opportunity for students to see desired behaviors modeled by not only peers, but also the
teacher. This outcome resonates with research, which has shown that teacher practices and
expectations have significant influence over the process of improvements in students’ social
skills (Catalano, Berglund, Ryan, Lonczak, & Hawkins, 2002).
A teacher interested in developing collaboration among students should start by
establishing norms with students. These should be heavily focused on social skills (looking
individuals in the eye, maintaining appropriate conversational tone, actively listening to the
speaker) and should be monitored and positively reinforced by both teacher and students even as
they become part of the daily routine (Blum, Libbey, Bishop, & Bishop, 2004; Hamre & Pianta,
2005; Jennings & Greenberg, 2009). Once norms are established, the teacher should provide
opportunities for the students to work collaboratively, in a variety of situations, so students are
able to refine their collaborative skills (Bond & Hauf, 2004; Durlak et al., 2011). During this
time, the teacher should continue to reinforce and model the norms for collaboration (Durlak et
al., 2011). Over time, and with consistent reinforcement, the teacher will no longer have to
facilitate student interactions, and collaboration will become more strongly rooted into students’
expectation for the classroom experience. As the students become more proficient, teachers
should shift the focus of students monitoring from proficiency in collaborative skills to the
outcomes of collaboration. This will assist students in developing an understanding of the power
of collaboration.
94
The Role of Academic Perseverance in the Development of Critical Thinking and Creative
Thinking
Academic perseverance is the ability of an individual to continue to work on a problem or
task that is not immediately solved. The hallmark of academic perseverance is the ability to
maintain the motivation to see the task to completion, even when unexpected challenges arise
during the process (Farrington et al., 2014). Academic perseverance is often associated with the
concept of grit, or the ability to maintain focus on one task for a long period of time (Duckworth
et al., 2007). Studies have shown that individuals who exhibit grit tend to be highly successful
and experts in their fields (Duckworth, 2009). While grit, itself, has been potentially identified
as an innate and somewhat fixed personality trait (Srivastava et al., 2003), research has shown
that it is possible to teach perseverant behaviors even when they are not innate to an individual
(McCrae & Costa, 1994; Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000). Studies related to academic
perseverance have shown a moderate relationship between perseverance and student
performance outcomes (Farrington et al., 2014). However, a closer examination of the limited
research shows that student perseverance is highly influenced by the classroom and school
environment and tends to mimic the conditions in which the student is placed (Dweck et al.,
2011).
Critical Thinking
Critical thinking is viewed as an essential skill in the 21st century because of the vast
amounts of information that are readily available for consumption (Conference Board,
2006). Complex problem solving is a requirement for higher paying opportunities in the 21st
95
century world because of the rise in automation and the trend toward outsourcing routine, low-
cognitive demand jobs to countries where labor is less expensive (Pink, 2011; Saavedra & Opfer,
2012; Trilling & Fadel, 2009).
A teacher interested in promoting critical thinking in the classroom would first need to
commit to allowing students to engage in productive struggle. This can be difficult for teachers
who do not subscribe to a constructivist mindset, as it is counterintuitive to traditional teacher-
centered classroom frameworks (Cubukcu, 2012; Tillapaugh & Haber-Curran, 2013). However,
with practice, teachers can learn to push their students to solve complex problems that are
beyond students’ comfort zones. Beginning this process requires the teacher to provide an
environment rich with sufficient supports for student perseverance (Duckworth, 2009; Tough,
2011). Literature indicates that this can best be done by providing instruction that is authentic
(and valued by students), and structuring feedback so that it promotes a growth mindset among
students (Boss et al., 2013; Dweck et al., 201; Farrington et al., 2012). When students feel they
are valued as part of a community, they are more likely to feel they are capable of success. The
prospect of success, coupled with willingness to take academic risks and the value that authentic
work provides, develops the intrinsic motivation required for students to persevere in difficult
academic situations (Duckworth et al., 2007; Dweck, et al., 2011).
In addition to modeling and teaching strategies for perseverance, students should also be
provided with an adequate repertoire of learning strategies. In this pilot, when teachers began to
transition their classrooms to student centered work spaces, they wondered if the students were
frustrated because they lacked perseverance or if they lacked a sufficient volume of learning
strategies that would see them to the completion of the task (Farrington et al., 2012). Learning
96
strategies are ways by which students focus on their academic goal, metacognitively monitor
their progress toward their goals, and select specific strategies that assist them in progressing
toward their goal (Farrington et al., 2012; Zimmerman, 2001).
While literature does not provide specific models for how to teach learning strategies
(Farrington et al., 2012), it does provide significant evidence that there are several critical
components that can be used as a means of developing students’ proficiency in application of
learning strategies during instruction. Students must develop effective means by which they
employ metacognitive strategies (Hacker et al., 2009; Flavell, 1979; Isaacson & Fujita, 2006),
monitor their learning and adjust behaviors when they are not being successful (Pintrich &
DeGroot, 1990; Zimmerman, 2001), and self - regulate learning by applying cognitive strategies
like rehearsal, elaboration, manipulation of information, and organizing information (Farrington
et al., 2012; Paris & Winograd, 1990; Weinstein, Mayer, & Wittrock, 1986; Zimmerman,
1990).
Literature supports the idea that learning strategies can be developed in students over
time, with results showing that students show the most promising results when they are explicitly
taught learning strategies within the context of the cognitive content they are learning
(Farrington et al., Graham & Harris, 1994; Hattie et al., 1996; Ritchhart et al., 2009). In this
study, teachers provided students with opportunities to track their own progress toward
proficiency, while they manipulated and organized information they acquired during the
unit. Teaching these learning strategies within the context of the unit provided students with the
ability to develop a sense of pride in their work, which motivated them to continue to persevere
with the work, even though it was challenging (Bembenutty & Karbenick, 1998). Teachers
97
perceived that students’ critical thinking skills improved in the last few days of the pilot. This
was the time period when students had developed a sense of success and were beginning to see
the results of their labor and were comfortable taking academic risks in order to learn more about
the problem they were solving. This mirrors what literature says about developing critical
thinking skills as they are predicted to improve with regularly occurring and structured
opportunities to practice (Boss et al., 2013; Case, 2005; Duckworth et al., 2011).
Creativity
The 21st century demands the ability of the workforce to continually adapt to fast paced
innovation by continuously improving services, processes, and products (Trilling & Fadel,
2012). Innovative skills cannot be developed in the absence of opportunities to employ creative
thinking skills nestled within authentic problems (Boss et al., 2013; Partnership for 21st century
skills, 2007; Saavedra & Opfer, 2012; Trilling & Fadel, 2012).
Teachers who wish to develop creativity among their students should start by providing
opportunities for students to think about problems from multiple perspectives or elaborate on
solutions that other students provide to problems (Boss et al., 2013; Saavedra & Opfer,
2012). However, students who are just beginning to explore their creative abilities may be
hesitant to engage in creative processes because of the common American misconception that
creativity is a fixed trait that cannot be developed over time (Azzam, 2009; Niu & Sternberg,
2002; Saavedra & Opfer, 2012). The first step to combatting this misconception is underscoring
the malleability of creativity with students by facilitating an environment where students have a
growth mindset about their creative potential (Dweck, 2006; Saavedra & Opfer, 2012).
98
Once students have a firm foundation of willingness to take intellectual risks in order to
develop their creativity, teachers can introduce learning strategies like brainstorming, elaboration
exercises, and concept mapping, which have been shown to assist students in developing their
creativity (Azzam, 2009; Boss et al., 2013; Trilling & Fadel, 2012). These processes will serve
as a scaffold for students and allow them to begin to be more confident in their creative
abilities. In this study, one of the key elements for developing reluctant students’ creativity was
the ability of those students to persevere when faced with a creative task. This was evident when
students had to continue to revise their thinking about how to create and tune their musical
instruments so that they could produce the final product, the song they were assigned. While the
students found the work challenging, they continued to engage in the creative process with the
support of their teachers. This resonates with literature, which indicates that teachers can
enhance students’ abilities to persevere in developing their creative abilities by providing
encouragement and feedback that highlights effort, success, and progress (Dweck, 2009;
Sternberg, 2006; Saavedra & Opfer, 2012).
Conclusion
While the work of connecting non-cognitive factors (learning strategies, social skills,
perseverance, mindset, and academic behaviors) with critical thinking, creativity,
communication, and collaboration (4C skills) is in it’s infancy, this pilot study provided a
foundation from which the rubric and visual has been devised to aid educators who have a desire
to move their classrooms to a more 21st century skill focused environment. Using these tools
will help educators, in both teaching and administrative roles, to more thoroughly understand
99
how to develop critical thinking, creativity, communication, and collaboration (4C skills) in
students. While specific connections among non-cognitive factors and critical thinking,
creativity, communication, and collaboration (4C skills) were made from this pilot study, it is
evident that there are many places where these skills overlap and provide effective means for
developing skills in students that will prepare them for their experiences in the workforce.
100
CHAPTER 5 IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The dissertation's Complex Problem of Practice emerges because current curriculum
provides students few opportunities to develop and refine their skills in collaboration, creative
thinking, effective communication, and critical thinking (the 4Cs). This dissertation in practice
examined curriculum and strategies (connected to Florida Standards) that teachers can use to
engage students in developing these essential skills. This will prepare students to engage in and
meet the expectations of a 21st century workforce.
The intention of the pilot study was to determine the impact of providing students with
the opportunity to engage in curriculum that will develop their 4C skills (critical thinking,
creative thinking, collaboration, and communication). This type of instruction is not
commonplace in the school district that was used for this study, nor is it commonplace in most
classrooms across the United States (IYF, 2012; OECD, 2009; Peterson et al., 1989; Saavedra,
2012). The result of the lack of instruction has led to workforce concerns and an interest in
developing “soft skills” among the nation's youth (Binkley et al., 2010); Saavedra, 2012.).
The Pilot study was conducted to answer two research questions:
1. Do students exhibit collaboration, creative thinking, effective communication, and critical
thinking skills (4Cs) when the curriculum provides opportunity to engage the students in
work where they can demonstrate the 4Cs?
2. How can explicitly teaching students non-cognitive factors (academic mindset, academic
behaviors, perseverance, social skills, learning strategies) influence their ability to
effectively demonstrate 4C skills?
101
While current legislative mandates require focus on assessment and accountability
(Cawthon, 2004; Crowder & Konle, 2015; Kohn, 2001), there are curriculum programs that do
emphasize the development of 4C skills (critical thinking, creative thinking, collaboration, and
communication) alongside of content. These curricula are often described as Project Based
Learning and show promise in developing students’ 4C skills (critical thinking, creative thinking,
collaboration, and communication) when teachers are provided with extended opportunities for
professional learning and student progressions are followed over significant periods of time
(Finklestein et al., 2010; Hixson et al., 2012; Mergendoller et al., 2006).
Together, the teacher and administrator practitioners have approached this dissertation in
practice from what Herr and Anderson (2015) called organizational “insiders” collaborating to
gather information to inform the teaching practices happening within the organization. In more
traditional dissertations, conducting research in one’s own setting can be frowned upon because
of the natural biases the researchers bring to the work (Glesne & Peshkin, 1992). However, as
insiders in the organization, both practitioners were able to approach the problem within the
organizational context, and ensure that conclusions and solutions rendered were appropriate,
ethical, and pragmatic for the organization. The teacher researcher was a participant in the pilot,
noting the struggles and successes that came with implementation of the collaboration,
communication, creative thinking, and critical thinking (4C) focused unit of instruction. The
administrator researcher did not participate directly in the pilot, but analyzed the participants’
reflections and the detailed notes from the focus groups. Together, the researchers collaborated
to build the framework by which teachers can move toward implementing curriculum that will
also develop students’ collaboration, communication, creative thinking, and critical thinking
102
(4C) skills. The researchers monitored bias by maintaining active reflective practices and careful
considerations of epistemology and methodology (Herr & Anderson, 2015). The researchers
applied specific mechanisms for addressing biases, using the guidelines for validity criteria
proposed by Herr and Anderson (2015) as well as triangulation of data, member validation
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985), and validation meetings with our advisor and other doctoral candidates
in our cohort (Bone, 1996).
Qualitative data were collected throughout the pilot process in order to determine whether
teachers perceived students’ improving their abilities to exhibit 4C (collaboration,
communication, creative thinking, critical thinking) skills. Improvement was measured based on
teachers’ perceptions of success. These included teachers citing specific improvements in
students’ abilities, or noting the perceived improvement of students’ willingness to participate in
activities related to 4C (collaboration, communication, creative thinking, critical thinking)
skills. These measures were chosen based on the participatory action research traditions of
collaborative data analysis. Anderson and Herr (2015) noted that participatory action research
can be participatory in multiple phases of research. Since one of the researchers is a participant
in the study, both researchers felt it was necessary to include the other participants in the
discussion of student progress. By involving the participants in the collection of data and the
analysis of students’ progress, the researchers built in a natural bias check-point, which helped to
maintain the integrity of the study.
The pilot study was significant because it revealed teacher perceptions that students
abilities to exhibit effective communication, collaboration, creativity, and critical thinking (4C)
skills were increased with the implementation of a unit of instruction that was rich in 4C
103
opportunities and supported with explicit instruction in non-cognitive factors. The pilot also
provided evidence that teachers perceived instruction and modeling non-cognitive factors to be
integral to the development of strong communication, collaboration, creative thinking, and
critical thinking (4C) skills. The data collected from the pilot informed the framework from the
positionality of the teacher practitioner and administrative practitioner. This data informed the
researchers about the need for a specific tool to guide administrators and practitioners in the
implementation of curriculum rich with opportunities for students to develop their
communication, collaboration, creative thinking, and critical thinking (4C) skills and a means by
which teachers and administrators can understand the link between development of academic
mindset, learning strategies, academic behaviors, social skills, and academic perseverance (non-
cognitive factors) and communication, collaboration, creative thinking, and critical thinking (4C)
skills. During the first three days of instruction, none of the teachers reported
improvements. From Days 4-7 teachers began noting improvements in one or more of the 4C
skills. During Days 8-10, multiple teachers noted significant overall improvement in one or
more 4C skills.
By collaboratively analyzing the outcomes of the pilot from both the teacher and
administrative perspectives, the researchers developed a framework to address the problem of
practice: the lack of consistent opportunity for students to learn through curriculum that is rich in
opportunities to develop collaboration, communication, critical thinking, and creative thinking
(4C) skills.
104
Program Coursework
Many factors shaped the direction of this dissertation, but none more than the EdD
coursework coupled with the relationships and personal face-to-face conversations with faculty
members. Notable courses included Facilitating Learning—Development & Motivation,
Organizational Theory in Education, and Identifying Complex Problems of Practice. These
course served as a platform for developing understanding of how to use theory and research in
learning, development, and motivation to identify, analyze, and solve both learning and
motivational problems in a variety of educational settings. Notable texts included Rueda’s
(2011) The 3 Dimensions of Improving Student Performance, Bolman and Deal (2011), and
Mayer’s (2010) Applying the Science of Learning. These texts served as foundational reading
materials, which challenged and expanded our thinking and lead to the ability to successfully
complete a gap analysis to diagnose an educational performance problem and solve it with
research-based interventions. Ultimately, these materials, courses, and experiences were
scaffolds that assisted in shaping the pilot study. The coursework experiences culminated with
proposing and implementing data driven decisions, which brought the idea of a dissertation in
practice to life and set a clear, concise path for moving forward to the completion of this work.
In addition to the coursework for the EdD program, both practitioners completed the
requirements to become certified in educational leadership. These courses were instrumental in
the development of the positionality of the administrator practitioner, and also provided
significant perspective to the teacher practitioner. In particular, curriculum development and
building school culture were discussed in great depth, and were beneficial for both the
105
development and progress of the pilot and dissertation process, but also the day-to-day job
requirements of both practitioners.
While the coursework was significant in developing the understanding and perspectives
of both practitioners, nothing was more impactful than the face-to-face dialogue with faculty,
committee members, and, especially, our committee chair.
Implications
The framework developed as a result of this pilot study is intended to inform teachers,
administrators, and students by showing the link between the development of non-cognitive
factors and communication, collaboration, critical thinking and creative thinking (4C) skills. The
visual aid was developed by the researchers to show how academic mindset, learning strategies,
academic behaviors, social skills, and academic perseverance (non-cognitive factors) function as
prerequisite skills for collaboration, communication, creative thinking, and critical thinking (4C)
skills. This link was one that teachers discovered through the implementation of the pilot study;
teachers later indicated that they would have liked this support at the outset of
implementation. The framework can be used by teacher and administrators as a diagnostic tool
for assisting students in the development of specific 4C skills or as a means of determining
whether a classroom is providing a firm foundation for 21st century skills by providing a
collaboration, communication, creative thinking, and critical thinking (4C) rich curriculum.
The descriptions included in the rubric also provided recommendations based on the
work of Farrington et al. (2012) for moving from one level of implementation to the next. The
recommendations are intended for use in conjunction with the rubric as a means of providing
106
concrete guidance concerning how to embed reflective practices to help students develop skills
and how to model for students an academic mindset, learning strategies, academic behaviors,
social skills, and academic perseverance (non cognitive skills). This tool provides a means of
scaffolding the development of collaboration, communication, creative thinking, and critical
thinking (4C) skills.
The use of this framework and rubric offers a means by which educators can directly
address the lack of 21st century skill development that is common in classrooms across the
United States (International Youth Foundation, 2012; OECD, 2009; Peterson et al., 1989;
Saavedra, 2012) and begins to respond to the demands expressed by employers for a more
prepared 21st century workforce (Binkley et al., 2010; Saavedra, 2012). Employing this
framework will serve the purpose of preparing students to make educated decisions as citizens,
and to overcome the challenges that await them when they arrive in the workforce or in a post-
secondary institution (Baron & Markman, 2000; Matthews, 2006; Parker, 2003; Wilson &
Berenthal, 2005).
Recommendations for Future Study
The findings in this study indicate that teachers perceived students’ communication,
collaboration, critical thinking, and creativity (4C) skills were increased when they followed a
unit plan that incorporated opportunities for students to practice these skills and were supported
by the explicit instruction and monitoring of non cognitive factors (social skills, perseverance,
academic mindset, academic behaviors, and learning strategies). While this study showed
positive results, there were several limitations that should be noted. These limitations include the
107
context of the pilot, small sample size, and duration of the study. The success of this pilot
generates the recommendations for future research that could serve to provide practitioners with
more information about how to effectively develop communication, collaboration, critical
thinking, and creativity (4C) skills in students.
The pilot for this study involved various fifth grade classes from a traditional elementary
school. Elementary school students generally see one or two teachers throughout the school day.
Along with this, the students are with the same group of peers throughout the school day, and
school year. Because of its nature, the students have at least some knowledge of all of the
personalities of the various students in their classrooms. This fact may (or may not) influence the
development of students’ communication and collaboration skills, and should be noted by
practitioners. In contrast, secondary school settings provide students with more expansive
opportunities to work with others, which more closely mirrors the workforce. Expanding the
study to include more students across multiple grade levels would be an ideal way to determine
whether the incorporation of opportunities to practice communication, collaboration, critical
thinking, and creativity (4C) skills and the explicit teaching and monitoring of non-cognitive
skills does enhance students’ abilities to exhibit those particular qualities, even when students do
not have familiarity with one another.
As previously noted, this study revealed the importance of the willingness of teachers to
embrace a student centered classroom in order for students to make significant progress in the
development of their communication, collaboration, critical thinking, and creativity (4C)
skills. This pilot happened over the course of a two-week period of time. This was not a
significant amount of time for teachers to assimilate to new, student centered teaching
108
strategies. Literature shows that teachers often need significant time and support to refine new
instructional strategies (Guskey, 2000; Killion, 2008; Kirkpatrick, 1998). While results from this
study showed improvements in teachers’ perceptions of students abilities to exhibit 4C skills,
further study is need to see if results are more dramatic when teachers have been provided with
extensive professional learning and feedback to refine their abilities to teach in a way that
promotes the development of these skills.
Finally, a more accurate means of measuring students’ progress toward mastery of
communication, collaboration, critical thinking, and creativity (4C) skills would be to measure
those skills directly in students. This would require the development of a tool, aligned to
Partnership for 21st Century Learning framework of 21st century ready skills (Partnership for
21st Century Skills, 2007) that could measure student proficiency in each of the 4C areas. Used
as an assessment, this tool would be an ideal way to more accurately describe student strengths
and progress toward 21st century proficiency, and could ultimately be an additional means by
which students could market themselves to universities or businesses.
Conclusion
This Dissertation in Practice addresses the problem of students lacking communication,
collaboration, critical thinking and creativity (4C) skills as they enter the workforce. This
problem is critical because it reveals a significant deficiency in our education system’s ability to
adequately prepare students to assimilate into their future roles in college, a career, or as a
responsible citizen capable of making good decisions in a global economy (Millican, 2003;
Stromquist, 2002). Neglecting this problem prevents the advancement of the country as
109
competitive in the world marketplace and able to sustain development and progress within the
United States (Eicher, 1996; Friedman, 2005; Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2004). The
authors of this dissertation in practice have proposed implementing a framework for curriculum
within education that is closely aligned with the needs of individuals living in a global society,
including structured and supported opportunities for students to engage in curriculum rich in
collaboration, creativity, communication, and critical thinking supported by explicit instruction
on how to develop the non-cognitive skills necessary to be successful in solving problems. In
order for teachers to develop these skills in students, school leaders must be willing and able to
support teachers in delivering instruction that not only provides opportunities to engage in work
that requires students to develop 4C skills, but also provides them with adequate non-cognitive
supports.
110
APPENDIX A SCIENCE OF SOUND
111
The Science of Sound: Unit Plan focused on Developing 4Cs and Non-Cognitive Factors through Standards Aligned Instruction
Standards Addressed:
MU.5.S.1.2: Compose short vocal or instrumental pieces using a variety of sound sources.
SC.5.N.1.1: Define a problem, use appropriate reference materials to support scientific
understanding, plan and carry out scientific investigations of various types such as: systematic observations, experiments requiring the identification of variables, collecting and organizing
data, interpreting data in charts, tables, and graphics, analyze information, make predictions, and defend conclusions.
SC.5.N.2.2: Recognize and explain that when scientific investigations are carried out, the
evidence produced by those investigations should be replicable by others.
SC5.P.10.1: Investigate and describe some basic forms of energy, including light, heat, sound, elbectrical, chemical, and mechanical.
Day Activities Assessments Reflection for students 1 The teacher will introduce the
students to the unit as a new type of instruction and ask for
students to be candid in their opportunities to reflect on their learning throughout the unit.
Students will complete a
formative assessment targeting the focus standards.
Students will be introduced to the learning scale for the unit and asked to write a reflection
citing specific evidence to support their claim for where they perceive their level of
knowledge.
The teacher will explain that the students will be working in
collaborative groups. Students will work as a class to develop
norms for collaboration, including how partners will
work together, what happens when there is a disagreement, and how to address a group
Students will complete the formative assessment focused on
above standards. Teacher will assess the student work and create groups of three or four based on assessment scores (low scoring with mid scoring, mid scoring
with high scoring).
Students will write their initial wonderings or concerns about the new way of work for this unit of
study and will explain where they perceive themselves on the
learning scale and will cite specific evidence to support their
claim.
112
member who is not performing to expectations. The teacher will
record these norms and post them in a prominent place in the room so that students can refer to them throughout the duration
of the lesson.
The teacher will explain that students will receive continuous feedback throughout the learning journey. Feedback will not be in
the form of grades. It will be one of three items: Mastery, Proficient (with comments on
how to improve to mastery), and Not Yet (with specific comments
on how to improve). The teacher will explain that system of feedback promotes a growth
mindset, where learning is valued.
2 Students will be presented with the challenge for the unit. They will be tasked with creating 3 different musical instruments with their group and playing their assigned song with the instruments they create. The teacher will assign students to
groups and will review the norms the class developed. Each
student will be provided with one card that contains a portion of a definition for a vocabulary word (Energy, pitch, frequency,
wavelength, medium, tone, vibration, sound, strings,
percussion, woodwinds, brass).
Students will practice communicating with their team by explaining (not reading) their
card to their teammates. The teammates will be asked to listen attentively using eye contact and positive body language (facing
the person, only focused on what they are saying). Students will take turns providing each other with their piece of information. The group will collaborate to
provide a complete definition of
The teacher will model how graphic organizers can be used as
a way to organize thinking and enhance understanding of how
words are related.
Groups will be challenged to create a graphic organizer to show
how they think the vocabulary words are inter-related. Groups will post their graphic organizer
and will be able to adjust the graphic through the unit to reflect any changes in their thinking. The
teacher will underscore the importance of the graphic
organizer as a learning tool that will serve the purpose of
facilitating learning, not just serving as a “grade”.
Students will reflect on how effectively their group was able
to maintain group norms and rate their proficiency at
communicating effectively with one another and will cite specific examples from their group work
to support their claims.
113
their assigned vocabulary word. 3 Students will be provided with
their challenge activity: work collaboratively to create at least 3 different musical instruments using materials provided and
learn to play the song the group has been assigned (Mary had a
Little Lamb, Ode to Joy, Twinkle Twinkle Little Star).
Assigned songs for groups will be based on group dynamics and needs. Higher achieving groups may be assigned multiple songs or songs that require more notes
to play.
Students will be provided with materials and will begin to
discuss what instruments they will create and how they will be
created. Groups will interact with their materials and work
collaboratively to create sounds.
The class will work collaboratively to create a rubric that will be used to assess their
instrument creations. The rubric will be posted in a prominent
place in the classroom so that all groups can refer to it through the
duration of the unit.
Students will revisit their graphic organizer of vocabulary words and
will rearrange the word relationships, if they feel it is necessary. The teacher will
provide specific feedback and ask questions to enhance student
understanding.
Students will record their initial successes and failures in creating
sound and will describe how their group is working through
the vocabulary graphic organizer and the creation of instruments.
4 Groups will be offered the opportunity to generate
questions they have about how musical instruments produce
sound. Groups will be able to observe and interact with actual music instruments in order to find answers to their questions
about how the instruments produce different sounds.
Groups will work with the teacher to refine their questions about musical instruments and later
answer their questions about how the instruments create different
sounds.
Groups will continue to work on their graphic organizer to show
how vocabulary words are related.
The teacher will facilitate learning by asking probing questions and
offering specific feedback to students.
Students will reflect on how well their group is communicating and
working collaboratively, how they are progressing in their
learning (scale assessment), and their progress on their graphic
organizer.
5 Students will share their progress and points of
frustrations with another group and will offer suggestions to
each other on how to improve their outcomes.
Groups will consider the advice of their peers and will continue to work on construction of their instruments. The teacher will
continue to facilitate learning by offering specific feedback to
students.
Groups will continue to work on their graphic organizer to show
how vocabulary words are related.
The teacher will facilitate learning by asking probing questions and
offering specific feedback to students.
Students will reflect on how well their group is communicating and
working collaboratively, how they are progressing in their
learning (scale assessment), and their progress on their graphic
organizer.
114
6-7 Groups will continue to work on construction of their instruments
and the ability to play their assigned song. The teacher will continue to facilitate learning by
offering specific feedback to students.
Groups will continue to work on their graphic organizer to show
how vocabulary words are related.
The teacher will facilitate learning by asking probing questions and
offering specific feedback to students.
Students will reflect on how well their group is communicating and
working collaboratively, how they are progressing in their
learning (scale assessment), and their progress on their graphic
organizer.
8-9 Students will use the rubric they created to (individually) provide
specific, actionable peer feedback to groups regarding the
mastery of their assigned task.
Each group of students will perform their assigned musical selection for the class and will
explain their instruments and how they work using grade appropriate
vocabulary words.
Students will individually write an explanation of what instruments
their group created, and how those instruments were modified to
create the desired sounds to play the song the group was assigned.
Groups will finalize their
vocabulary graphic organizers and submit them for assessment.
Students will reflect on their road to mastery of the standards and will cite specific evidence that
shows how their thinking aligns with the learning scale presented
at the beginning of the unit. Students will also reflect on how and why their vocabulary graphic
organizer changed as they progressed through the unit.
Students will also reflect on the structure of the unit and their
perceptions of how this structure influenced their learning.
Resources:
Learning Scale
4 In addition to being able to provide an extensive explanation for how the instruments work, the student can teach others how to create musical instruments, tune musical instruments, and can infer how other instruments work based on the student’s own interactions with instruments and
their sounds. 3 The student can adequately explain (using appropriate science and music vocabulary words) how
each of the different types of instruments produces sound and can explain how to modify the instrument to change the pitch of the sound that is created. The student understands and can
explain the science of how energy is related to sound. 2 The student has an emerging understanding of how sound and energy are related, but has a
limited understanding of how to produce sound through instrument modification. 1 The student has only a very preliminary framework for how sound is produced. There is limited
evidence to support the student’s understanding of how objects can create sounds and what role energy plays in the process.
115
APPENDIX B PERMISSION TO CONDUCT STUDY: FLAGLER COUNTY
116
P. O. Box 755 1769 E. Moody Blvd. Bldg. 2 Bunnell, FL 32110
Phone (386) 437-7526 Fax (386) 437-7577 www.flaglerschools.com
BOARD OF EDUCATION
Colleen Conklin Chairman District 3
Trevor Tucker Vice Chairman
District 4
Sue Dickinson Board Member
District 5
Andy Dance Board Member
District 1
Janet McDonald Board Member
District 2
Student School Board Member
Montgomery Russell Flagler Palm Coast H.S.
Student School Board Member Lauren Emery Matanzas H.S.
Teacher of the Year Kimberly Weeks
Old Kings Elementary School
Employee of the Year Deandre Harris
Indian Trails Middle School
Jacob Oliva Superintendent
January 27, 2016
To Whom It May Concern, Rodney Harshbarger and his wife, Denise Harshbarger, have approached me about conducting the pilot for their Dissertation in Practice within one of the schools in my district. I understand that the pilot will involve 4 classes of students who will be exposed to Florida Standards aligned curriculum that is based in the 4Cs of 21st Century Learning (collaboration, critical thinking, creative thinking, and communication). I am also aware that, in addition to the 4C curriculum, the students will be taught non-cognitive factors (academic behaviors, perseverance, social skills, learning strategies, and academic mindset), in order to help them to meet the rigorous demands of a 4C curriculum aligned with Florida Standards. The teachers that will be participating in this survey understand that this is voluntary. There will be no student names or student identifying information disclosed in this study. I understand that qualitative data will be collected from teachers as they implement this study, and that this information will be used as part of the Harshbargers’ Dissertation in Practice, which is being completed through the University of Central Florida’s Ed.D Education Program. I am willing for this pilot study to be conducted in my district and am eager to see the outcomes of the instruction. Sincerely,
Jacob Oliva Superintendent
“An Equal Opportunity Employer”
117
APPENDIX C INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL
118
119
APPENDIX D PERMISSION TO CONDUCT STUDY: OLD KING’S ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
120
121
REFERENCES
Achieve. (2013). Closing the expectations gap 2013. 50-state progress report on the alignment
of state K-12 policies and practice with the demands of college and careers. Retrieved
from http://www.achieve.org/files/2013ClosingtheExpectationsGapReport.pdf
Achieve. (2015). Closing the expectations gap: 2014 annual report on the alignment of state K-
12 policies and practice with the demands of college and careers. Retrieved from
http://www.achieve.org/publications/closing-expectations-gap-2014
Albanese, M., & Mitchell, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of literature on its
outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine, 68, 52-81.
American Management Association. (2010). Critical skills survey: Executive summary.
Retrieved from http://www.amanet.org/news/AMA-2010-critical-skills-survey.aspx
Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2002). Greater expectations: A new vision
for learning as a nation goes to college. Retrieved from
https://www.aacu.org/publications/greater-expectations
Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological
Review, 64(6), 359.
Azzam, A. M. (2009). Why creativity now? A conversation with Sir Ken Robinson. Educational
Leadership, 67(1), 22-26.
Babcock, P., & Marks, M. (2010). Leisure college, USA: The decline in student study time.
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 7, 1-7.
122
Baker, A. M., Kanan, H. M., & Al-Misnad, S. A. (2008). Factors that discriminate best between
students identified as motivated or not-motivated to achieve academically. Educational
Research and Reviews, 3(4), 128.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic
interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 41(3), 586.
Baron, R. A., & Markman, G. D. (2000). Beyond social capital: How social skills can enhance
entrepreneurs' success. The Academy of Management Executive, 14(1), 106-116.
Barron, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Powerful learning: Studies show deep
understanding derives from collaborative methods. Retrieved from
http://www.edutopia.org/inquiry-project-learning-research
Barron, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Excerpt: Teaching for meaningful learning: A
review of research on inquiry-based and cooperative learning (teaching for meaningful
learning). Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/resource/wildwood-edutopia-
teaching-for-meaningful-learning
Beane, J. A. (2013). A common core of a different sort: Putting democracy at the center of the
curriculum. Middle School Journal, 44(3), 6-14.
123
Belland, B., French, B., & Ertner, P. (2009). Validity and problem-based learning research: A
review of instruments used to assess intended learning outcomes. Interdisciplinary
Journal of Problem-based Learning, 3(1), 59-89.
Bembenutty, H., & Karabenick, S. A. (1998). Academic delay of gratification. Learning and
Individual Differences, 10(4), 329-346.
Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., & Rumble, M. (2010). Draft white
paper 1: Defining 21st century skills. Retrieved from
http://cms.education.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/19B97225-84B1-4259-B423-
4698E1E8171A/115804/defining21stcenturyskills.pdf
Blum, R. W., Libbey, H. P., Bishop, J. H., & Bishop, M. (2004). School connectedness–
strengthening health and education outcomes for teenagers. Journal of School Health,
74(7), 231-235.
Bond, L. A., & Hauf, A. M. C. (2004). Taking stock and putting stock in primary prevention:
Characteristics of effective programs. Journal of Primary Prevention, 24(3), 199-221.
Bonebright, D. A. (2010). 40 years of storming: A historical review of Tuckman's model of small
group development. Human Resource Development International, 13(1), 111-120.
Borman, G. D., & Dowling, N. M. (2008). Teacher attrition and retention: A meta-analytic and
narrative review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 367-409.
Boss, S., Larmer, J., & Mergendoller, J. R. (2013). PBL for 21st century success: Teaching
critical thinking, collaboration, communication, and creativity. Novato, CA: Buck
Institute for Education.
124
Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies
in continuing education, 22(2), 151-167.
Bouffard-Bouchard, T. (1990). Influence of self-efficacy on performance in a cognitive task. The
Journal of Social Psychology, 130(3), 353-363.
Bransford, J., & Schwartz, D. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple
implications. Review of Research in Education, 24(1), 61-100.
Bridgeland, J. M., Dilulio, J. J., & Morison, K. B. (2006). The silent epidemic: Perspectives of
high school dropouts. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED513444)
Brooks, J.G., & Brooks, M.G. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist
classrooms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Burghardt, M. D., Lauckhardt, J., Kennedy, M., Hecht, D., & McHugh, L. (2015). The effects of
a mathematics infusion curriculum on middle school student mathematics achievement.
School Science & Mathematics, 115(5), 204-215. doi:10.1111/ssm.12123
Bybee, R. W. (1997, October). The Sputnik era: Why is this educational reform different from all
other reforms. Paper presented at the Prepared for the Symposium Reflecting on Sputnik:
Linking the Past, Present, and Future of Educational Reform Washington, DC.
Carnegie Mellon. (2014). Research in teaching and learning. Retrieved from
https://www.cmu.edu/teaching/resources/Research/cognitive/index.html
Case, R. (2005). Moving critical thinking to the main stage. Education Canada 45(2), 45-49.
Catalano, R. F., Berglund, M. L., Ryan, J. A., Lonczak, H. S., & Hawkins, J. D. (2002). Positive
youth development in the United States: Research findings on evaluations of positive
youth development programs. Prevention & Treatment, 5(1), 15a.
125
Cawthon, S. (2004). How will No Child Left Behind improve student achievement? The
necessity of classroom-based research in accountability reform. Essays in Education,
11(11).
Chavkin, N. F. (Ed.). (1993). Families and schools in a pluralistic society. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Chen, D., Wang, L., & Neo, W. (2015). School-based curriculum development towards a culture
of learning: Nonlinearity in practice. British Journal of Educational Studies, 63(2), 213-
229. doi:10.1080/00071005.2015.1034236
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. (2003). Safe and sound: An
educational leader’s guide to evidence based social and emotional learning (SEL)
programs. Retrieved from
http://static1.squarespace.com/static/513f79f9e4b05ce7b70e9673/t/5331c141e4b0fba620
07694a/1395769665836/safe-and-sound-il-edition.pdf
Conference Board. (2006). Are they really ready to work? Employers’ perspectives on the basic
knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the 21st century workforce. Retrieved
from http://www.Partnership fpr 21st Century
Learning.org/storage/documents/FINAL_REPORT_PDF09-29-06.pdf
Credé, M., & Kuncel, N. R. (2008). Study habits, skills, and attitudes: The third pillar supporting
collegiate academic performance. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(6), 425-453.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
126
Crowder, Z., & Konle, S. (2015). Gumbo ya-ya or, what Pearson can't hear: Opt-out,
standardized testing, and student surveillance. The High School Journal, 98(4), 285-289.
Cubukcu, Z. (2012). Teachers’ evaluation of student-centered learning environments. Education,
133(1), 49-66.
Cury, F., Elliot, A. J., Da Fonseca, D., & Moller, A. C. (2006). The social-cognitive model of
achievement motivation and the 2× 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 666.
Daley, F. (2010). Why college students drop out and what we do about it. College Quarterly,
13(3). Retrieved from http://www.senecacollege.ca/quarterly/2010-vol13-num03-
summer/daley.html
Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Teacher learning that supports student learning. Teaching for
intelligence, 2, 91-100.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009).
Professional learning in the learning profession. Washington, DC: National Staff
Development Council.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination
in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(2), 109-134.
Donavan, L., Green, T. D., & Mason, C. (2014). Examining the 21st century classroom:
Developing an innovation configuration map. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 50(2), 161-178.
Duckworth, A. (2009). True grit: Can perseverance be taught [Video file]. Retrieved from:
http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/TEDxBlue-Angela-Lee-Duckworth-P
127
Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and
passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1087.
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The
impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta‐analysis of school‐
based universal interventions. Child development, 82(1), 405-432.
Dweck, C., & Leggett, E. (1998). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality.
Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.
Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.
Dweck, C., Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2011). Academic tenacity: Mindsets and skills that
promote long-term learning. Seattle, WA: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Eccles, J., Adler, T. E., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J., & Midgley, C.
(1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement
and achievement motives (pp. 75-146). San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman and Company.
Education Commission of the States. (2011, December). Pre-K-12 literacy: State of the nation,
12(6). Retrieved from EbscoHost database.
Eicher, T. S. (1996). Interaction between endogenous human capital and technological change.
The Review of Economic Studies, 63(1), 127-144.
Farrington, C., Roderick, M., Allensworth, E., Nagaoka, J., Keyes, T., Johnson, D. & Beechum,
N. (2012). Teaching adolescents to become learners: The role of noncognitive factors in
shaping school performance: A critical literature review. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research.
128
Finkelstein, N., Hanson, T., Huang, C., Hirschman, B., & Huang, M. (2010). Effects of problem
based economics on high school economics instruction (NCEE 2010-4002). Washington,
DC: Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education.
Flagler Beach, FL. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-
search/Flagler-Beach_FL/price-900000-na
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–
developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906.
Fredricks, J., Blumenfeld, P., Friedel, J., & Paris, A. (2004). School engagement: Potential of
the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109.
Freedman, S. (2007, November 7). New class(room) war: Teacher vs. technology. The New York
Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/education/07education.html>
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Herder & Herder.
Fullan, M. (2012). Stratosphere: Integrating technology, pedagogy, and change knowledge.
Toronto, Canada: Pearson.
Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic
engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 148-162.
Gallagher, S., & Gallagher, J. J. (2013). Using problem-based learning to explore unseen
academic potential. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 7(1), 110-131.
doi:10.7771/1541-5015.1322
Gardner, D. P. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC:
US Department of Education.
129
Glesne, S., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. White
Plains, NY: Longman.
Goertz, M. E., & Duffy, M. C. (2001). Assessment and accountability systems in the 50 states:
1999-2000. Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_researchreports/13
Grayson, J. L., & Alvarez, H. K. (2008). School climate factors relating to teacher burnout: A
mediator model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(5), 1349-1363.
Greenberg, M., Weissberg, R., O’Brien, M., Zins, J., Fredericks, L., Resnik, H., and Elias, M.
(2003). Enhancing school based prevention and youth development through coordinated
social, emotional, and academic learning. American Psychologist, 58(6-7), 466-474.
Greene, J. P. (2001). High school graduation rates in the United States. Retrieved from
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/high-school-graduation-rates-united-states-
5799.html
Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). Social skills rating system: Manual. Los Angeles, CA:
American Guidance Service.
Gu, Q., & Day, C. (2007). Teacher’s resilience: A necessary condition for effectiveness.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(8), 1302-1316.
Guskey, T. R. (2002). Does it make a difference? Evaluating professional development.
Educational Leadership, 59(6), 45-51.
Guskey, T. R. (2003). What makes professional development effective? Phi Delta Kappan,
84(10), 748.
130
Guskey, T. R. (2005). Taking a second look at accountability: Strong evidence reflecting the
benefits of professional development is more important than ever before. Journal of Staff
Development, 26(1), 10-18.
Hacker, D., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. (2009). Handbook of metacognition in education. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Hamre, B., & Pianta, R. (2005). Can instructional and emotional support in the first grade
classroom make a difference for children at risk of school failure? Child Development,
76, 949-967.
Hanushek, E. A., Peterson, P. E., & Woessmann, L. (2012). Achievement growth: International
and U.S. state trends in student performance. Retrieved from
https://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/PEPG12-03_CatchingUp.pdf
Hardré, P. L. (2012). Standing in the gap: Research that informs strategies for motivating and
retaining rural high school students. Rural Educator, 34(1), 1.
Harada, V. H., Kirio, C., & Yamamoto, S. (2008). Project-based learning: Rigor and relevance in
high schools. Library Media Connection, 26(6), 14-16.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to
achievement. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hattie, J., Biggs, J., & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of learning skills interventions on student
learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 99-136.
Henry, G. T., Bastian, K. C., & Fortner, C. K. (2011). Stayers and leavers early-career teacher
effectiveness and attrition. Educational Researcher, 40(6), 271-280.
131
Herman, J. L. (2007). Accountability and assessment: Is public interest in K-12 education being
served? Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and
Student Testing.
Herr, K., & Anderson, G. (2015). The action research dissertation: A guide for students and
faculty. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Hixson, N., Ravitz, J., & Whisman, A. (2012). Extended professional development in project-
based learning: Impacts on 21st century teaching and student achievement. Charleston,
WV: West Virginia Department of Education, Division of Teaching and Learning, Office
of Research.
Honken, N. B., & Ralston, P. A. S. (2013). High-achieving high school students and not so high-
achieving college students: A look at lack of self-control, academic ability, and
performance in college. Journal of Advanced Academics, 24(2), 108-124.
Hung, C.M., Hwang, G.J., & Huang, I. (2012). A project-based digital storytelling approach for
improving students' learning motivation, problem-solving competence and learning
achievement. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(4), 368-379.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis.
American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499-534.
Ingersoll, R. M., & Strong, M. (2011). The impact of induction and mentoring programs for
beginning teachers a critical review of the research. Review of Educational Research,
81(2), 201-233.
132
International Youth Foundation. (2012 March). Opportunity for action: Preparing youth for 21st
century livelihoods. Retrieved from
http://www.iyfnet.org/sites/default/files/Opportunity_for_Action.pdf.
Isaacson, R. M., & Fujita, F. (2006). Metacognitive knowledge monitoring and self-regulated
learning: Academic success and reflections on learning. Journal of Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning, 6(1), 39-55.
Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and
emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of
Educational Research, 79(1), 491-525.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social
interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 354-
379.
Jordan, A. (2014). Houston, we have a problem: Math and science education lags in the United
States, but CASIS is working to reverse the trend. IEEE Pulse, 5(4), 46.
Jorgensen, M. A., & Hoffmann, J. (2003). History of the no child left behind act of 2001 (NCLB).
Retrieved from
http://images.pearsonassessments.com/images/tmrs/tmrs_rg/HistoryofNCLB.pdf?WT.mc
_id=TMRS_History_of_the_No_Child_Left_Behind
Karaçalli, S., & Korur, F. (2014). The effects of project-based learning on students' academic
achievement, attitude, and retention of knowledge: The subject of 'electricity in our lives'.
School Science & Mathematics, 114(5), 224-235. doi:10.1111/ssm.12071
Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research policy, 26(1), 1-18.
133
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2005). Participatory action research: Communicative action and
the public sphere. In K. Herr & G. Anderson (Eds.), The action research dissertation: A
guide for students and faculty. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Killian, J. (2010). Assessing impact: Evaluating staff development. Oxford, OH: National Staff
Development Council.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (2006). Seven keys to unlock the four levels of evaluation. Performance
Improvement, 45(7), 5-8.
Kivunja, C. (2014). Teaching students to learn and to work well with 21st century skills:
Unpacking the career and life skills domain of the new learning paradigm. International
Journal of Higher Education, 4(1), 1-11.
Kober, N., & Rentner, D. S. (2012). Year two of implementing the common core state standards:
States' progress and challenges. Retrieved from
file:///C:/Users/D99012032/Downloads/KoberRentner_Report_CommonCore_1.25.12.pd
f
Kohn, A. (2001). Fighting the tests: A practical guide to rescuing our schools. Phi Delta Kappan,
82(5), 348-357.
Kolikant, Y. (2010). Digital natives, better learners? Students’ beliefs about how the Internet
influenced their ability to learn. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1384-1391.
Komarraju, M., Ramsey, A., & Rinella, V. (2013). Cognitive and non-cognitive predictors of
college readiness and performance: Role of academic discipline. Learning & Individual
Differences, 24, 103-109. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2012.12.007
134
Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukophadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998).
Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological
well-being? American Psychologist, 53(9), 1017.
Ladd, G. W., & Mize, J. (1983). A cognitive–social learning model of social-skill training.
Psychological Review, 90(2), 127.
Larmer, J., Mergendoller, J., & Boss, S. (2015). Setting the Standard for Project Based Learning.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Larsen, D. P., Butler, A. C., & Roediger, H. L. (2009). Repeated testing improves long-term
retention relative to repeated study: A randomized controlled trial. Medical Education,
43(12), 1174-1181.
Lee, J., & Shute, V. J. (2010). Personal and social-contextual factors in K–12 academic
performance: An integrative perspective on student learning. Educational Psychologist,
45(3), 185-202.
Lleras, C. (2008). Do skills and behaviors in high school matter? The contribution of non-
cognitive factors in explaining differences in educational attainment and earnings. Social
Science Research, 37(3), 888-902.
Malecki, C. K., & Elliot, S. N. (2002). Children's social behaviors as predictors of academic
achievement: A longitudinal analysis. School Psychology Quarterly, 17(1), 1.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works:
Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
135
Mathis, W. J. (2010). The “Common core” standards initiative: An effective reform tool.
Retrieved from
http://www.greatlakescenter.org/docs/Policy_Briefs/Mathis_NationalStandards.pdf
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1994). The stability of personality: Observations and evaluations.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3(6), 173-175.
McDonnell, L. M. (2005). No child left behind and the federal role in education: Evolution or
revolution? Peabody Journal of Education, 80(2), 19-38.
Mega, C., Ronconi, L., & De Beni, R. (2014). What makes a good student? How emotions, self-
regulated learning, and motivation contribute to academic achievement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 106(1), 121-131. doi:10.1037/a0033546
Mergendoller, J., Maxwell, N., & Bellismo, Y. (2006). The effectiveness of problem-based
instruction: A comparative study of instructional methods and student characteristics.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(2), 49-69.
Millikan, R. (2003). Globalisation and education: Critical perspectives. Journal of Research in
International Education, 2(3), 352-353.
Mouton, S. G., Hawkins, J., McPherson, R. H., & Copley, J. (1996). School attachment:
Perspectives of low‐attached high school students. Educational Psychology, 16(3), 297-
304.
Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine children's
motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 33.
136
National Education Association. (2010). Preparing 21st century students for a global society: An
educator’s guide to the “Four Cs. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/A-
Guide-to-Four-Cs.pdf
Newman, M. (2003). A pilot systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of problem
based learning. Retrieved from
https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/sr2_effectiveness_of_pbl_0.pdf
Newmann, F. (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality. San
Francisco, CA: Josey Bass.
Niu, W., & Sternberg, R. (2002). Contemporary studies on the concept of creativity: The East
and the West. Journal of Creative Behavior, 36(4), 269-288.
Organization of Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2009). Creating effective teaching
and learning environments: First results from TALIS. Retrieved from
http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/43023606.pdf.
The Partnership for 21st Century Learning. (2015). Partnership for 21st century learning
framework definitions. Retrieved from http://www.Partnership for 21st century
Learning.org/storage/documents/docs/PARTNERSHIP FPR 21ST CENTURY
LEARNING_Framework_Definitions_New_Logo_2015.pdf
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research,
66(4), 543-578.
Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990). How metacognition can promote academic learning and
instruction. Dimensions of Thinking and Cognitive Instruction, 1, 15-51.
137
Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 8(3), 293-316.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2007). Partnership for 21st century skills
framework. Retrieved from http://www.Partnership fpr 21st Century
Learning.org/storage/documents/1.__Partnership fpr 21st Century
Learning_framework_2-pager.pdf
Payne, R. K., DeVol, P., & Smith, T. D. (2001). Bridges out of poverty: Strategies
for professionals and communities. New York, NY: Aha.
Peterson, P, Fennema, E., Carpenter, T., & Loef, M. (1989). Teacher’s pedagogical content
beliefs in mathematics. Cognition and Instruction, 6(1), 1-40.
Peterson, P. E., Woessmann, L., Hanushek, E. A., & Lastra-Anadón, C. X. (2011). Globally
challenged: Are US students ready to compete? The latest on each state's international
standing in math and reading. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED526954.pdf
Pink, D. H. (2006). A whole new mind: Why right-brainers will rule the future. New York, NY:
Riverhead Books.
Pink, D. H. (2011). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York, NY:
Riverhead Books.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667-686.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
138
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components
of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33.
Pokay, P., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (1990). Predicting achievement early and late in the semester:
The role of motivation and use of learning strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology,
82(1), 41.
Raizen, S. (1997). Making way for technology education. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 6(1), 59-77.
Ravitz, J. (2009). Introduction: Summarizing findings and looking ahead to a new generation of
PBL research. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 3(1), 3-11.
Reeves, D. B. (2006). The learning leader: How to focus school improvement for better results.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Ritchhart, R., Turner, T., & Hadar, L. (2009). Uncovering students’ thinking about thinking
using concept maps. Metacognition and Learning, 4(2), 145-159.
Roberts, B. W., & Del Vecchio, W. F. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits
from childhood to old age: a quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological
Bulletin, 126(1), 3.
Rotherham, A. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2010). 21st-century skills. American Educator, 17-20.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
139
Ryan, A. M., Gheen, M. H., & Midgley, C. (1998). Why do some students avoid asking for help?
An examination of the interplay among students' academic efficacy, teachers' social–
emotional role, and the classroom goal structure. Journal of educational psychology,
90(3), 528.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Saavedra, A. R., & Opfer, V. D. (2012). Learning 21st-century skills requires 21st-century
teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(2), 8-13.
Scafidi, B., Sjoquist, D. L., & Stinebrickner, T. R. (2007). Race, poverty, and teacher mobility.
Economics of Education Review, 26(2), 145-159.
Schleicher, A. (Ed.). (2012). Preparing teachers and developing school leaders for the 21st
century: Lessons from around the world. Retrieved from
https://www.oecd.org/site/eduistp2012/49850576.pdf
Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher,
29(7), 4-14.
Shulman, L. S., & Hutchings, P. (2004). The wisdom of practice: Essays on teaching, learning,
and learning to teach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Silva, E. (2008). Measuring skills for the 21st century. Retrieved from
http://educationpolicy.air.org/sites/default/files/publications/MeasuringSkills.pdf
140
Silver, E., Mesa, V., Morris, K., Star, J., & Benken, B. (2009). Teaching mathematics for
understanding: An analysis of lessons submitted by teachers seeking NBPTS
certification. American Educational Research Journal, 46(2), 501-531.
Skinner, B. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York, NY: Free Press.
Srivastava, S., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2003). Development of personality in
early and middle adulthood: Set like plaster or persistent change? Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 84(5), 1041.
Staats, A. (1963). Complex human behavior. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The nature of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 87-98.
Stiggins, R. (2005). From formative assessment to assessment for learning: A path to success in
standards-based schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 324-328.
Stromquist, N. P. (2002). Education in a globalized world: The connectivity of economic power,
technology, and knowledge. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Taylor, M. W. (2013). Replacing the ‘teacher-proof’ curriculum with the ‘curriculum-proof’
teacher: Toward more effective interactions with mathematics textbooks. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 45(3), 295-321. doi:10.1080/00220272.2012.710253
TED. (2009, October 18). Angela Duckworth: True grit: Can perseverance be taught? [Video
file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaeFnxSfSC4
Teo, A., Carlson, E., Mathieu, P. J., Egeland, B., & Sroufe, L. A. (1996). A prospective
longitudinal study of psychosocial predictors of achievement. Journal of School
Psychology, 34(3), 285-306.
141
Thoman, E., & Jolls, T. (2004). Media literacy—A national priority for a changing world.
American Behavioral Scientist, 48(1), 18-29.
Tillapaugh, D., & Haber-Curran, P. (2013). At the intersection of leadership and learning: a self-
study of using student-centered pedagogies in the classroom. Educational Action
Research, 21(4), 519-531. doi:10.1080/09650792.2013.832345
Tomlinson, C. A. (2000). Reconcilable differences: Standards-based teaching and differentiation.
Educational Leadership, 58(1), 6-13.
Tough, P. (2011). What if the secret to success is failure. The New York Times
Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/magazine/what-if-the-
secret-to-success-is-failure.html?_r=0
Tracey, T. J., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1982). Non-cognitive variables in predicting academic success
by race. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED219012.pdf .
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. San Francisco,
CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Tucker, M. S. (2011a). Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: An American Agenda for Education
Reform. National Center on Education and the Economy (NJ3).
Tucker, M. S. (Ed.). (2011b). Surpassing Shanghai: An agenda for American education built on
the world's leading systems. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6),
384.
142
Turner, S. L. (2014). Creating an assessment-centered classroom: Five essential assessment
strategies to support middle grades student learning and achievement. Middle School
Journal, 45(5), 3-16.
Tyack, D. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
United States Government Accountability Office. (2012). K-12 education: Selected states and
school districts cited numerous federal requirements as burdensome, while recognizing
some benefits. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/591930.pdf
VanTassel-Baska, J., Bracken, B., Feng, A., & Brown, E. (2009). A longitudinal study of
enhancing critical thinking and reading comprehension in title I classrooms. Journal for
the Education of the Gifted, 33(1), 7-37.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental process. Cambridge,
MA: President and Fellows of Harvard College.
Wang, M., & Eccles, J. (2013). School context, achievement motivation, and academic
engagement: A longitudinal study of school engagement using a multidimensional
perspective. Learning & Instruction, 28, 12-23.
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of
research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Retrieved from
http://www.educationalleaders.govt.nz/Pedagogy-and-assessment/Pedagogical-
leadership/Balanced-leadership-what-30-years-of-research-tells-us-about-the-effect-of-
leadership-on-student-achievement
143
Weinstein, C. E., Mayer, R. E., & Wittrock, M. C. (1986). Handbook of research on teaching.
New York, NY: MacMillan.
Weiss, E. M. (1999). Perceived workplace conditions and first-year teachers’ morale, career
choice commitment, and planned retention: A secondary analysis. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 15(8), 861-879.
Weissberg, R. P., Caplan, M. Z., & Sivo, P. J. (1989). A new conceptual framework for
establishing school-based social competence promotion programs. In L. A. Bond & B. E.
Compas (Eds.), Primary prevention and promotion in the schools (pp. 255-296).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Wentzel, K. R. (1991). Relations between social competence and academic achievement in early
adolescence. Child Development, 62(5), 1066-1078.
Wentzel, K. R. (1993). Does being good make the grade? Social behavior and academic
competence in middle school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(2), 357.
Wentzel, K. R., & Asher, S. R. (1995). The academic lives of neglected, rejected, popular, and
controversial children. Child Development, 66(3), 754-763.
Wentzel, K. R., & Caldwell, K. (1997). Friendships, peer acceptance, and group membership:
Relations to academic achievement in middle school. Child Development, 68(6), 1198-
1209.
Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A developmental
perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6(1), 49-78.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A theoretical
analysis. Developmental Review, 12(3), 265-310.
144
William, D., Lee, C., Harrison, C., & Black, P. J. (2004). Teachers developing assessment for
learning: Impact on student achievement. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy,
and Practice, 11(1), 49-65.
Wolf, M. A. (2004). Professional development for professional developers. THE Journal, 31(12),
30.
Wraga, W. G. 1. (2011). What's the problem with a 'rigorous academic curriculum'? Setting new
terms for students' school experiences. Clearing House, 84(2), 59-64.
doi:10.1080/00098655.2010.511307
Wyers, A. (2014). Website top 10 online colleges visualizes valuable future work skills.
Retrieved from http://www.trendhunter.com/trends/future-work-skills
Yang, C. K. (2011). How do students' problem solving strategies and preferences in learning
environments relate to their mathematical performance? A comparative study between
South Korea and the United States. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED528918.pdf
Zimmerman, B. (2001). Self-regulated learning. International Encyclopedia of the Social and
Behavioral Sciences (pp.13855-13859). New York, NY: Elsevier.
Zimmerman, B., & Schunk, D. (Eds.). (1989). Self-regulated learning and academic
achievement: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.